No Hawk-eye for India - England series after DRS made mandatory

[Haarithan]

After this dubious decision to give Chanderpaul out lbw today, I'm having this doubt regarding the usage of DRS for the upcoming series between England and India. As it stands, Hawk Eye isn't a part of the England India series, but tell me what happens if a situation like this is encountered:

A player is given out lbw when the ball has clearly hit the batsman's pads outside the line and the batsman's well aware of it and feels confident of referring that. In that case, under the normal implementation of the DRS, we would be getting the decision as:

Pitched - outside off
Impact - Outside (green)
Original decision - out (red)

Overturned decision - Not out (green)

But does that 'Impact' part come under the usage of hawk eye is my question? I mean the hawk eye is basically used to predict the future path taken by the ball once it pitched, and just predicts whether the wickets are hitting/non hitting. So practically speaking, anything before the ball pitching isn't a part of the hawk eye, so can that decision be overturned without the usage of hawk eye?

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

Man!! Haarithan you are too fast too type. Was typing the same issue.

 

[Themer]

They aren't using Hawkeye at all. So there'd be no issue. If you're out LBW there is no possibility of it being overturned.

 

[Sureshot]

I don't believe that is correct, that will use the tools available to them outside of Hawkeye. They will still check for edges. I don't know whether they would use slow-mos or anything like that if the batsman felt it was miles outside off/pitching outside leg, I doubt they would as it would get messy.

 

[Themer]

I don't believe that is correct, that will use the tools available to them outside of Hawkeye.

Thats what I meant. Not sure why I'd forgotten that about edges and the like. Woops.

 

[sifter132]

Yeah it's a bit of a shame if all the elements Hawkeye is abandoned. If BCCI don't like predicting the path fair enough, but being hit outside the line should be obvious and the ball pitching outside leg should be obvious - there's no prediction required to see those. If a few Indians get out LBW with those conditions breached that might help, particularly Tendulkar and Dhoni

 

[Sureshot]

As said, the only way I see this changing is for India to get a whole host of shocking LBW's. [/conspiracy]

 

[teamindia]

As said, the only way I see this changing is for India to get a whole host of shocking LBW's. [/conspiracy]

Not gonna happen. We will remove the umpire instead

Between are you Suresh-OT (Suresh - off topic ) or Sure-Shot??

 

[tarun87]

Not gonna happen. We will remove the umpire instead

 

[Sureshot]

Don't know if anyone else realises this yet, but India have also forced the ICC to reject the Leg-Off pitch area marker for mandatory use.

Deluded doesn't even begin to describe the BCCI.

 

[Fenil]

There should be Hawk Eye in every series.

 

[War]

Don't know if anyone else realises this yet, but India have also forced the ICC to reject the Leg-Off pitch area marker for mandatory use.

Deluded doesn't even begin to describe the BCCI.

Got any article link highlighting that specific point?

 

[Themer]

ting that specific point?

Decision Review System: Michael Holding not a fan of ball-tracking technology | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

"While paring down the DRS, the ICC also rejected the visual aid provided by the pitch mat, again on the BCCI's insistence, a move that Holding criticised. "That mat is placed there by an immovable camera," he said. "[It shows] where the ball is being pitched, and that has been shown to be 100% correct, so I have no problems with that. I don't see why India don't want to use it.""

 

[War]

Decision Review System: Michael Holding not a fan of ball-tracking technology | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

"While paring down the DRS, the ICC also rejected the visual aid provided by the pitch mat, again on the BCCI's insistence, a move that Holding criticised. "That mat is placed there by an immovable camera," he said. "[It shows] where the ball is being pitched, and that has been shown to be 100% correct, so I have no problems with that. I don't see why India don't want to use it.""

My goodness

----------

I actually totally agree with India's stance. Hawk-eye shouldn't be used.

you can't predict the future, and I personally don't think you should be using technology to confirm or contradict predictions, because it cannot 100% do that. it can only offer it's own prediction, you might argue that it's more often right than an umpire but I don't think anything should be allowed to completely supercede an umpire when it's really only offering an alternative opinion.

Well if has its common knowledge that the hawk-eye is clearly more right in its prediction that a umpires understanding, then surely that is good improvement??

there is another factor, and that's what DRS was brought in for. I rarely lost any sleep about slightly iffy LBW decisions. What I wanted to see from DRS is the increasingly dreadful caught behind decisions ending. it's not fair if a bowler takes a nick and gets nothing and it's not fair if a batsman doesn't touch the ball and gets out. I can't say it smacks of the same level of unfairness with a very close lbw.

How could it not be on the same level of unfairness?. A howler of iffy LBW against a batsmen could change of game or series just as significantly as the later two examples you gave.

 

[Owzat]

I will point out that people are critical of the accuracy of umpire's predictive powers and eyesight, they have ONE view and at full speed. Give them slow motion replays and their accuracy would improve, it isn't that hawk-eye is magic in any way, it's just umpires are ONLY HUMAN.

Why is it there was the clamour for 'technology' in the first place? Because smartarses in chairs watched replays in slow motion and could see that umpires without that luxury were making mistakes..................................

Funny how the smartarses at home and in s*y studios and commentary boxes could see, via replays only, the mistakes were being made, yet don't advocate using that to check decisions but instead 'technology' as if umpires couldn't get it right with replays