• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Hawkeye Effect

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
When I was watching Hilfenhaus rap Strauss on the pads, first ball of the second innings, I started thinking again of the effect that Hawkeye has had on cricket and umpires especially.

Five years ago, there is no doubt that it would be given out LBW. Leaving the ball, hit well in front on or around the knee roll - thanks for coming. The benefit of the doubt would almost go to the bowler in that circumstance; you have a bat, use it! However, now, if that had've been given out, then people would decry it as a bad decision.

In a way, it evens itself out, as it's becoming an especially effective tool for spinners and LBW shouts. It has also, in general, made umpires a lot more aware of height when deciding upon LBW appeals. But it lets batsman get away with more when they don't use their stick, something that I don't agree with at all.
 

robelinda

International Vice-Captain
SEN was rampant last night with this topic. I dunno, i'm sure Strauss would not have been upset if it was given out, and there was no review system, poor judgement it was indeed. It looked bad live, but these days a lot of balls that looked out in previous years have been shown to be incorrect. Front on views are always tough to judge the height on, they can look so out and look dead out but you cant see how far the batsman is out of his crease for instance. Ive got no problem with the Strauss one, but maybe I should??
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'd normally agree, but Strauss was right up on his toes, so there was a good 2 or 3 inches extra in it. I've seen those not given, but I do agree that he would have been more likely to have been given out in the past.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Hawkeye has definitely changed our perception of what is or isn't LBW, but I have to be honest & say I thought it was a very duff referral first up, was always heading over for my quid. I'm guessing Ponting got a little caught up in the moment of wanting to bag his opposite number for a pair.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hawkeye has definitely changed our perception of what is or isn't LBW, but I have to be honest & say I thought it was a very duff referral first up, was always heading over for my quid. I'm guessing Ponting got a little caught up in the moment of wanting to bag his opposite number for a pair.
I thought the same. And with Strauss so far back in his crease and the bat nowhere to be seen, if it's hitting the stumps, the umpire's going to give it.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
When I was watching Hilfenhaus rap Strauss on the pads, first ball of the second innings, I started thinking again of the effect that Hawkeye has had on cricket and umpires especially.

Five years ago, there is no doubt that it would be given out LBW. Leaving the ball, hit well in front on or around the knee roll - thanks for coming. The benefit of the doubt would almost go to the bowler in that circumstance; you have a bat, use it! However, now, if that had've been given out, then people would decry it as a bad decision.

In a way, it evens itself out, as it's becoming an especially effective tool for spinners and LBW shouts. It has also, in general, made umpires a lot more aware of height when deciding upon LBW appeals. But it lets batsman get away with more when they don't use their stick, something that I don't agree with at all.
Hawkeye has taught us all, and umpires in particular, that the stumps are a lot shorter and wider than we ever thought.

Disagree quite strongly with the "punish the batsman for a bad leave" tendency which used to afflict umpires, and sometimes still does. Either it's hitting or it's missing, and if it's missing it's not out. There's no room for moralising really.

(But if we did want to get moralising about it, we might say that bowlers should learn to pitch the ball up more, which would be no bad thing)
 

Top