An agreed 6th day?

[Mr Casson]

They can though.

By witnessing it in previous balls they can take it into account, something a computer program cannot do.

You've heard it from the two posts above... but it's worth saying a third time.

Umpires cannot say with 100% accuracy that a ball is going to swing after hitting the batsman's pads. There's just no way he can do it, and if that's your only argument then it's unfounded.

 

[shankar]

You've heard it from the two posts above... but it's worth saying a third time.

Umpires cannot say with 100% accuracy that a ball is going to swing after hitting the batsman's pads. There's just no way he can do it, and if that's your only argument then it's unfounded.

But the beauty of the rule is that it doesnt matter if the Umpire or Hawk-eye cannot predict whether the ball might swing arbitrarily if it hadnt been obstructed by the pad. This the lbw law:

Law 36 (Leg before wicket)
1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

3. Off side of wicket
The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.

So according to 2(b) all the deciding authority has to do is to predict if the path traced by the ball prior to hitting the pad would have carried it onto the stumps. It adjusts for the fact that it is impossible to predict (not in a 100 years at least!) what exactly the ball would have done had it not hit the pads.

 

[Zinzan]

You just answered it yourself.

The case where the ball swings after bouncing - Hawkeye cannot cope with it, because of the nature of the actual swing.

Lets face it, neither human umpires or computer umpires (technology) will get it 100 % right, but the use of technology will at least get it right more often.

It makes a mockery of umpires all too often at the moment where average Joe sitting at home watching t.v can clearly see the umpire has made yet another error with the aid of technology.

Even if some of the decisions aren't 100 % right....setting a precedent of what is clearly out and where there is doubt would be a lot easier for technology..thus giving us more objectivity and more consistency. Thats all the players ask for I'm sure is consistency.

The sooner the better I say....Who would want to be an umpire these days?

 

[slugger]

no rebuttal from marc(phone no#) thats one for the books.