Yeah, but I don't think HE is used after it hits the pads, so if that's the case does the third umpire substitute his view of whether it's hitting the stumps, or is he obliged to say "not an obvious error by my compadre on the field, therefore the decision stands?"
I would say that based on my viewing of the SL series, the decision making of LBWs have more or less been taken from the on-field umpire to the third umpire. Though ICC guidelines say, "Third umpire has to "assist" on-field umpire, and final decision is taken by on-field umpire", for all practical purposes, it was like referral of a runout. And worse, there were even some decisions where the third umpire himself got it wrong despite the referral. But again, that was an exception and referrals were a success in total imho.
Considering what I saw in Sri Lankan series, an aggressive captain like Dhoni, considering that Hayden's being such an important wicket, would refer it to the third umpire. And the third umpire would tell the on-field umpire that
Have read this, no idea why this would be the case. Hawkeye relies on calculations which are not exactly rocket science so I'm sure they're pretty accurate. Anyone heard an official reason why they're not using the prediction?
Because the makers of Hawkeye are yet to guarantee 100% accuracy. It's like 99.something percent correct instead.
If the criterium is 100% accuracy, it'll never get used then. There's error in any calculation.
Yeah, and I regard that as ridiculous, Because if you are relying on the Hawk Eye to generate the path of the ball upto the point of impact, you should be able rely on the path after impact also. You cannot claim the technology is not 100% accurate, so am using only half of it.
How is is McGain out for, maybe when he goes back until McGain maybe him & Holland can form the spin bowling combination for Victoria?
Word out, having Symonds in India now gives lower middle that much needed counter-attacking effect that Gilly orchestrated, which along with hopefully Lee & a fit Clark to reverse swing the ball in the ball two & probably picking Krezja are the things Australia need to be competitive for the remainder of this series.
The difference has been India's bowling and Australia's batting in the second test. The pitch had nothing in it and the game was destined for a draw. Australia managed to retrict India to 469 on a wicket where 600 wasn't impossible. Then, they struggled against the Indian bowling being all out for a low total they had no business being being outfoxed by the likes of Mishra who bowled very well.
That's an odd thing to say. If it was out after watching on replay, then he should have been given out.
Yea, basically, it's many times more accurate than 50 year old tired eyes who've been out in the sun all day, but because umpires have this holy place in cricket, we must not do anything to infringe on their God given right to lord over every aspect of a cricket match.
Having done a lot of umpiring, I can say that whilst this is certainly true, it's not as true as you would think (IMO, anyway). Things are the same except you're obviously closer. You have the same angles and it's the same amount of time available to you. Being closer you're more influenced by how far down the pitch the batsman is, though. The obvious difference is that you're watching for the no ball.
He probably would, but with our our pace attack not getting it to reverse, one wonders how Australia are going to get wickets.
The all time classic hawk-eye extrapolation occurred in the 2005 Ashes
Yea, I don't umpire at a very high standard, so I'm not the best person, but generally, the angle you view the ball makes a difference.
), when the bowler is in his stride in to get my eye level closer to the stumps, so it gives me a better view of LBW decisions. I'm still not very good, but I can't imagine having the same amount of decisions right if I were watching on TV real time from a top angle. Of course, having replays is the main thing which would make the TV much more accurate.
So an umpire never gives someone out when he shouldn't be? The question isn't whether hawk eye is perfect (it isn't). It's whether it is more or less accurate than an umpire.
Not good enough to discount the tech for two reasons;
