Re: HawkEye - absolute rubbish.

by Shoeshine Thu 09 Jul 2009, 14:57

embee wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:Because it's artificial. For example, if you have a bowler turning the ball square you are asking the umpire to assume that when it would have pitched it won't do any of that, but will continue on the same line. So you're asking the batsman to take into account how much it will turn but the umpire doesn't have to. There's no reason at all you can't ask the umpire to consider off a full toss how far it would have pitched from the stumps and how the ball would have behaved from there.

If you get hit on the toe playing forward to someone who you know damn well is doing enough to take the ball way past the stumps, it's rather galling that the law in place decides to ignore any of that variation and give you out.

Edit: Oh right, you've deleted your question.

The umpire has to make an assumption for every LBW decision ...if the assumption is "standardised" then there should be a consistency of LBW decisions

Of course he does. But the point being made is that it's an artificial assumption - to ignore everything that he normally has to take into account.

by Bradman Thu 09 Jul 2009, 14:59

Though it is nice to have a law change in favour of the bowler for once, idiotic it may seem.

by embee Thu 09 Jul 2009, 15:07

All assumptions are artificial

by G.Wood Fri 10 Jul 2009, 01:15

Bradman wrote:Though it is nice to have a law change in favour of the bowler for once, idiotic it may seem.

meh, if you miss a full toss you deserve to be gunned

by Zat Fri 10 Jul 2009, 01:38

Sage.

by DJ_Smerk Sun 12 Jul 2009, 10:01

Umar Gul to Warnapura, OUT, this time Gul strikes, Pakistan get their first wicket, Warnapura is gone lbw, he's hit on leg stump line on the knee roll, it would have gone on to hit the stumps, but replays show the ball pitched marginally outside the leg stump

Another example of replays and hawkeye having a mind of its own?

by Sponsored content