I believe that if you can assert with technology with a satisfactory degree of accuracy (lets say 99%) that 48% of a cricket ball would have hit the stump had it been allowed to continue on it's path uninterrupted, and provided that said delivery pitched in line and hit the batsman in line pad first off a legal delivery, then you can give it out LBW.
*****. I`m normally pretty on your side. But you just needed to say 'yes' here.
To me it’s worth that twice a year hawkeye **** up to avoid the twice a series shocker we see currently.
Apparently it is down to 2.2 mm from 3.7 mm a few years back (assuming its used properly), but that is for the direct impact. Nobody really knows what it is for the prediction path because few details on testing have actually been released. I've heard errors of as much as 1 cm when judging height above stumps.
I think it is most of the time. The margin of error on most lbw projections would be minimal, when given plenty of distance between the impacts of the ground & pad, and relatively close to the stumps. I'd go out on a limb and say in the case of the Boult lbw decision there was >99% chance of the ball hitting the stumps.
and see, here is where the problem lies
You can’t really get test results for a predictive path. There’s nothing to measure against.
LT, what is your favourite path?
You can. They test against the actual result. i.e. bowl a ball and follow actual path. Then give the computer say half the path of the ball (or 2.5 m from stumps or whatever) and then ask it to project a predictive path. Compare the two. Do this x number of statistically significant times for different scenarios.
The one you took when reality went to the right and you took a sharp left.
But why is that your favourite?
No we all do... and then we all get a vote to trust the DRS or not.
Because it made you the man you are today.
And we must all suffer the consequences.
This is fair, and just a difference in priorities.