Oh Deary Me!

[PY]

And how can the 3rd umpire help?

HawkEye isn't definite enough and you can't base the decision on a third umpire watching replays on a 2D screen!

 

[open365]

^69

 

[open365]

And how can the 3rd umpire help?

HawkEye isn't definite enough and you can't base the decision on a third umpire watching replays on a 2D screen!

normal replays quite clearly show that Jones should have been out first ball and that he inside edged the LBW he got out on.

 

[PY]

So you're advocating using the 3rd umpire whenever there's an appeal to do with LBWs?

Umpires' thoughts : "Yes, that was going on to hit the stumps. Wait......best check there wasn't an edge there as the bat was within a foot of the ball."

It'd get ridiculous with referrals, imagine them doing that when Gilo or Warney are bowling? You'd get an over every 10 minutes!

 

[Scaly piscine]

And how can the 3rd umpire help?

HawkEye isn't definite enough and you can't base the decision on a third umpire watching replays on a 2D screen!

Isn't definite enough?!?

You can rule out anything that isn't hitting the stumps or pitches outside leg within a second with Hawkeye - quicker than most umpires at present. If it's hitting the stumps you can see where it's hitting according to Hawkeye, the umpires can then look at a slow motion replay to assure themselves that the evil Hawkeye isn't making it up as it goes along and check for obvious inside edges.

 

[Armadillo]

Well not really seeing as the lbw's worked pretty well in the world series, probably the only good thing that came out of that series.

 

[steds]

I'm not too sure about the accuracy of Hawkeye.

 

[seamer]

Just awful really. But pretty much every series is marred by it. It plays a massive role in every test match yet Nothing's ever done though.

It beggars belief how you can turn down stonewaller's like Collingwoods edge and his LBW, Bells LBW and Jones first baller today yet you can then give the later Jones one.

Just mindboggling inept officiating. I cannot begin to imagine what the umpires are thinking. Terrible that it's allowed to go on.

 

[steds]

Just awful really. But pretty much every series is marred by it.

No it isn't. It's just only the bad decisions which people remember.

 

[seamer]

I'm not too sure about the accuracy of Hawkeye.

May not be perfect but having it available to refer to as a guide would still result in the opportunity for a greater percentage of accurante and correct decisions.

Absolutely guaranteed it would improve things hugely.

 

[seamer]

No it isn't. It's just only the bad decisions which people remember.

Yes it is.

And people remember good one's too actually.

The point is that it doesn't need to be this way. What's the point of settling for a mixed bag lottery?

There is no good reason we should have to settle for a few good decisions and a few shockers.

 

[open365]

I'm not too sure about the accuracy of Hawkeye.

y?

its sceintificaly proven to be amaingly accurate.I wouldn't want it to be used for LBWs either but i don't dought its accuracy.

 

[PakistanCricket]

I'm not too sure about the accuracy of Hawkeye.

I'm substantially less sure about the accuracy of umpires decisions.

 

[open365]

^i have a feeling your going to get banned soon(if i'm wrong then ignore this post)

 

[SpeedKing]

What fascinates me about cricket is how things seem to even themselves out. I think it is ggod for cricket to mantain the luck involved which would be eradicated by Computerised umpiring. I can only imagine that games would be finished in about 3 days, as all the close escapes before a great knock, would all be done away with. I the end, it is humans playing, and it is only fair that humans umpire it as well. They are are the best around as it is a hard job as they are the only ones involved in the actual match, that have to concentrate for the whole 5 days. [Every ball, scary porspect]

 

[Jono]

I really wish Kaneria got his hatrick.

 

[marc71178]

Whether the ICC and umpires like it or not, this is the future for cricket.

There's a dfference between using Hawkeye to confirm where a ball landed and using it to predict where a ball might have landed.

 

[marc71178]

Isn't definite enough?!?

You can rule out anything that isn't hitting the stumps or pitches outside leg within a second with Hawkeye - quicker than most umpires at present. If it's hitting the stumps you can see where it's hitting according to Hawkeye, the umpires can then look at a slow motion replay to assure themselves that the evil Hawkeye isn't making it up as it goes along and check for obvious inside edges.

Methinks you're confusing the one not-proven system (Hawkeye) with the other non-proven system (Snicko) here

The fact is that neither are confirmed accurate enough,

 

[marc71178]

y?

its sceintificaly proven to be amaingly accurate.

Provide this proof then.

 

[Dasa]

Provide this proof then.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/223413.html

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/125938.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/136222.html

..and you can read this for a good summing up of all the reasons for/against technology:
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/142121.html