Uppercut, I'm completely serious. You're saying that Hawkeye is better than human eyes. I'm saying that if you really have a machine that can calculate wha a ball will do, I look forward to seeing the resultant batting machine.
I'm no expert, but I'd suspect that the hawkeye system probably calculates based on some base line parameters and a couple of variables per delivery. The human brain/eye combo remains massively more advanced and capable.
Essentially what you're arguing is that access to multiple replays and/or slow motion would help you make a better decision, which is a truism tha says nothing about whether Hawkeye in and of itself is more accurate than a person.
Yeah, I agree with you on this....
What hawk-eye does is predict the line of the ball after impact, now there is a clear problem with that, in 8/10 instances hawk-eye shows the ball hitting or clipping the stumps, now if one starts going by that, most tests would be over in 2 days or less.
The thing with the lbw law is, its not as clear cut as other modes of dismissal that are there in cricket, an umpire has to predict whether the ball would have hit the stumps and also take into account all the other factors, that are required for an lbw decision to go be given in favor of a batsman or a bowler.
Now I would always trust an umpire to do a better job than hawk-eye when making an lbw decision, I think most good umpires don't rule a batsman lbw, unless they are completely sure that the ball is hitting the stumps.
Not noticing an inside-edge, or the the impact outside off-stump, or the ball pitching outside leg, are some usual errors that umpires make while ruling someone lbw, and this where hawk-eye and hot-spot can help the 3rd umpire as guidelines, but I'm not big on it predicting whether a ball is hitting the stumps or not.
