tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post381516613304192392..comments2024-03-29T03:00:43.730-07:00Comments on The Old Batsman: The Eye has itThe Old Batsmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14376172807195747856noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-59946807260031313912010-07-02T01:01:36.912-07:002010-07-02T01:01:36.912-07:00Hi David, yes agreed, but I would argue that the u...Hi David, yes agreed, but I would argue that the umpire is making a human judgment, based on the same visual and instinctive clues used by players and commentators, rather than the Hawkeye radar. It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.The Old Batsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14376172807195747856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-31635976255529576692010-07-01T20:30:52.511-07:002010-07-01T20:30:52.511-07:00It predicts the path of the ball based upon what h...<i> It predicts the path of the ball based upon what has happened to it until it's been intercepted by the pad. Which would be fine if the flight of a cricket ball was always predictable.</i><br /><br />In making a decision, the LBW law says that "it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not." So Hawkeye is just doing what umpires should do.<br /><br />(This point of the LBW law comes up most often with spinners - if the ball hits the pad on the full, then even if it's a Shane Warne legbreak, the umpire has to assume that it wouldn't have turned.)David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.com