Umpires are granted sovereignty over leg-before decisions and that's the way it should be, not merely because one of cricket's romantic ideals rests on it but because of the predictive nature of the business. If mistakes are to be made - and there are margin of errors with HawkEye, which relies on humans to operate cameras and make projections - it is far more palatable to have these made by umpires than a supposedly infallible machine. HawkEye is a magnificent tool for television, and that's all it should be when it comes to cricket.

But has HawkEye had a positive influence on the way umpires make decisions? We'll come to this later.

Dravid was unfortunate to be given out, but only marginally so. Cricket follows the criminal-justice system, which grants the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, but personally I don't really mind the odd batsman given out this way. Dravid was beaten, and though the impact was just outside the line, the ball was going on to hit the stumps. It would have been another matter if the ball was going down leg, but in this case there was some reward for the bowler who had bowled a ball good enough to beat the batsman. Batsmen get away with a lot these days; many have mastered to subtle art of dragging the front foot outside the off stump and pretending to play a stroke.

Collingwood gets a good stride in against Kumble at Lord's, but it isn't quite enough © Getty Images

It was ironic that a Test that featured 14 lbws, the most in a Test in England, and the fourth highest in history - the record is 17, in the game between West Indies and Pakistan at Port-of-Spain in April 1993 - was ultimately decided by one that was not given. Steve Bucknor has been vilified by Indian fans ever since he adjudged Sachin Tendulkar lbw at Brisbane in 2003, when the ball was palpably sailing over the stumps. By the same standards, he should now be a national hero in India for having spared Sreesanth, the last man, in what turned out be the dying moments of the Test after Monty Panesar had trapped him in front. It looked out, both to the naked eye and on television replays.

Nonetheless it was significant that so many were given, and even though the spinners didn't get that many, the one that Anil Kumble did get points to a happy story. Paul Collingwood went full stretch forward, but Kumble beat him on length and the ball speared into the pad. There was not much doubt about where the ball was headed, yet few umpires would have favoured the bowler a few years ago. But Taufel is a modern umpire who doesn't mind giving the batsman out on the front foot, and with that dismissal Kumble became the bowler with the highest number of lbws, beating the record of another spinner - who else but Shane Warne.

No other spinner in recent history has had a wider range of deliveries designed to trap batsmen leg-before than Kumble, but to Warne must go the credit of convincing umpires that it isn't a sacrilege to award front-foot lbws. His stature helped, but Warne also perfected the art of appealing; combining the force of his personality with impeccable timing he half-coaxed and half-intimidated umpires into choosing in his favour. His flipper acquired an aura of its own, and few batsmen had a chance after he had suckered them.

Of course, umpires in the subcontinent were far more liberal with the front-foot lbw to begin with. For one, they were exposed to a lot more spin bowling, and also, on low-bouncing wickets in their parts, once the path of the ball had been judged, it was easier to hand out decisions in favour of the bowlers.

This wasn't always the case with umpires who had less experience of spin bowling. It was as late as last year that Brian Jerling, a South African umpire standing only in his second Test series, drove Kumble and his team-mates batty by negating appeal after straightforward appeal. Indian won the series 1-0, but Greg Chappell, then India's coach, reckoned that the margin would have been larger had Kumble not been denied.

Monty Panesar had a happier experience against the same opponents this summer because he had umpires far more responsive to his supplication.

If mistakes are to be made - and there are margin of errors with HawkEye, which relies on humans to operate cameras and make projections - it is far more palatable to have these made by umpires than a supposedly infallible machine. HawkEye is a magnificent tool for television, and that's all it should be when it comes to cricket

In all fairness it must be said that it was a South African umpire who was one of the early radicals when it came to lbws. Dave Orchard got some stick for his howlers, but he was a bowlers' umpire who was brave enough to rule by his instincts than play it safe. He took it too far at times, perhaps, and he once ruled Sourav Ganguly lbw after he had had jumped down a few paces against Muttiah Muralitharan. Ganguly had made no attempt to play a stroke and in Orchard's eye he had deliberately used his pads to intercept the path of the ball as it headed for the stumps. Ganguly was mortified and the decision got Orchard plenty of flak, but it was a brave one, and it was a warning to batsmen prone to using their pads as the first line of defence.

Believe it or not, HawkEye could be another factor. A leading umpire, whose name I cannot reveal because the conversation was private, once told me that he was emboldened to give front-foot lbws after he was exposed to HawkEye projections. "It got everybody, spectators, players and umpires used to the idea," he said. "Earlier I would have played safe, but it was far more okay to give a batsman not out on the front foot than to give him out. But now I'm confident of going with my first impression because I know the graphic will support my decision."

Numbers support the hypothesis that umpires have been more inclined towards handing out lbws in recent years, and that they have been favourably disposed towards giving lbws in favour of spinners. In the seven years since 2000, spinners have won 597 lbw dismissals out of a total of 11,113 dismissals of all types, which is 5.37 per cent. In all, lbws have accounted for 17.1 per cent of dismissals. The corresponding figure is 3.68 per cent (400 out of 10,564) in the 1990s, 2.77 per cent (215 out of 7734) in the 1980s, and 2.87 per cent (226 out of 5578) in the 1970s.

Lbws by bowler type down the decades

	Decade	Lbws for spinners	Lbws for fast bowers	Lbws for others	Total dismissals	Spinners' lbw wickets %	Lbws as a % of total dismissals
	2000s	597	1277	27	11,113	5.37	17.10
	1990s	400	1318	36	10,564	3.68	16.60
	1980s	215	950	31	7734	2.77	15.46
	1970s	176	502	43	6115	2.87	11.79
	1960s	226	358	77	5578	4.05	11.85

Not a lot has favoured the bowlers, spinners in particular, in the recent past. Bats have got heavier and more powerful, boundaries have got shorter, and rules have been amended to suit batsmen. It's good to know umpires have done their bit to redress the balance somewhat.

The Ganguly episode that Sambit reminds us is not about Dave Orchard being brave or for that matter principled. I have seen the replays of the decision several times. It was anything but Umpiring. A club level umpire would have done better. That delivery was pitched outside the off stump, the batsman well down the wicket, the ball was not even a top spinner- it was an off break. Sambit ought to be more cautious when stating facts to prove a point. Otherwise, the article does bring out the facts that we all have been observing. It is true that a certain PADAMS may not have done that well in INDIA if umpires were better educated by Hawk-eye.

As ever Sambit, this is cracking stuff. Having started out as an off-spinner it always bemused me why my arm ball (ok, the one that doesn't spin at all, ever) didn't get an lbw when the batsman lunged forward with his pad, hanging his bat somewhere in the vicinity.

Hawkeye may have had an impact in showing that front foot decisions can and should be made. Perhaps this will bring about a change in techniques, just as Peter May and Ted Dexter's play against Sonny Ramadhin did.

Dave Orchard gave 5 lbws to Mark Ealham in a one dayer against Zimbabwe when Ealham took 5-15. And every one of them was spot on. Poor technique from the Zimbabwe batsmen.

"Umpires are granted sovereignty over leg-before decisions and that's the way it should be, not merely because one of cricket's romantic ideals rests on it but because of the predictive nature of the business. If mistakes are to be made - and there are margin of errors with Hawk-Eye, which relies on humans to operate cameras and make projections - it is far more palatable to have these made by umpires than a supposedly infallible machine."
For the love of god, you make it sound as though hawkeye were some sort of rough estimate made by specialists on the spot. It's not. Hawkeye is based on highly accurate and precise calculations carried out according to the fundamental laws of physics that we are aware of. As for the "human operated cameras", they are installed on the ground and run automatically, without the need of any human interference. Would you, for instance, doubt the predicted date of an eclipse? Sure, there's plenty a margin of error! Fractions of a second perhaps, but it's not as though that's less accurate than the prediction your local fortune teller would have... Come on, give Hawkeye a break, it's loads more accurate than any umpire, unless you think astronomical predictions are less accurate than your local fortune teller...

"HawkEye is a magnificent tool for television, and that's all it should be when it comes to cricket."
Not very true in these days of hitech; If a defendent can be sentenced or aquitted in a court of law based on DNA evidence, in same manner HawkEye should be made use of to provide fair decisions on the play ground. Try to make the technology more accurate.

So when it comes to important cricket decisions which could ultimately decide a series or even a career, you prefer romance over fact? How about "It is out if it was going to *actually* hit the stumps"? Hawk-Eye is so much more accurate than umpires on good days and bad days, it is time we stopped having bad decisions and batsmen are given out when supported by fact, not the romance of an umpires wrong decision.

The square leg umpire should be the only one to judge whether the ball would have gone over the stumps or not. So, only if square leg and the bowler's end umpire are happy, should the batsman be given out. A simple measure that will cut out the lousy decision seen the earlier this Test.

The third umpire is allowed endless video replays to decide whether a catch has carried or if a batsman has made good his ground in a run-out or stumping attempt, whilst the same technology is not used for no-balls or lbws. Any decision that ends with the batsman being given out surely should, in the interest of fairness, be subject to equal scrutiny.. Yet the ICC seem to be saying that it's more important to get run-out and stumpings correct than lbws or dismissals from a missed no-ball for example. I wonder why...The old justification of wasted time just doesn’t wash…. If the technology is used for some decisions.. then it should be used for all.. anything else is discriminatory

I understand that the makers of hawkeye themselves reckon it has a small margin for error (between 5-10% epening on which accounts my memory thinks it has read). SO if it is to be used to decide lbws then why not make the ball as shown on hawkeye smaller than an actual cricket ball - say down to the size of a golf ball. This means that the marginal decisions (such as a ball just clipping the bails, just impacting outside off stump etc) would have a margin built back in.

That said however I have had no confidence in the system since England's last tour of the subcontinent. I forget whether it was in India or Pakistan but Ian Bell was bowled by a ball which Hawkeye showed to have been missing the stumps! Personally I would stick with human umpires and accept their frailties but if it does come in then I would build in a bias as stated above.

First of all, let me correct a basic misunderstanding about Hawk Eye - it is not infallible, it is CONSISTENT. Irrespective of venue, nationality, reputation of the batsmen or bowler, color of skin etc. etc. Hawk Eye's decision will be the same day in and day out. This isimpossible to achieve by a human umpire. Secondly, Sambit Bal seems to think that an appeal for lbw decision should be akin to an arguement in a criminal court before a judge (the umpire)! What a ridiculous notion. The lbw laws and the laws of physics are clear cut and I believe Hawk Eye is a better judge of whether the ball pitched in line or not, whether the bounce was too high etc., than an umpire

It is high time "judgement" decision making were turned over Hawk Eye or at least the umpires be given the discretion to consult it on ANY decision on the field, not just close catches and run outs.

Must be an Aussie thing....Darrell Hair gave the West Indies much grief in 2004 on their tour of Englnd. Among his victims BC Lara and CH Gayle...on numerous occasions. Very generous umpiring with the beneficiary being Ashley Giles...in fact in one instance, Vaughn switched ends with him so that he could get the benefit of Hair's decision against Gayle who was so far forward that the decision defied all reason.
Yes, batsmen have to use the bat, not the pad first, but some of these decisions are really questionable and there is no consistency among the elite umpires where it comes to leg before decisions.

I don't think the romance will go out of the game by using Hawkeye any more than using Third umpire did. These are just some of the positive changes the game will go through as it has been in the past & not many people will agree that the game is less exciting now. The romance & excitement comes from the tussle between the bat & ball & the spirit of the individuals playing the game, which is not going to be affected adversely by technology. Lets use technology in a positive way wherever we can to improve fairness & judgement.

I wonder if it really has influenced lbw decisions; in fact it seems that umpires are still unwilling to consult it for decision-making; we usually see hawk-eye says it would have hit the stumps, but the inflated-egoed umpires refuse to consult it (leaving a bad taste for the supporters of the wronged side). One often wonders why the umpires keep on refusing to consult hawk-eye when assistance for run-out decisions (almost exclusively)are taken with the aid of modern technology. Before opining on whether hawk-eye has influenced lbw decisions umpires should concentrate on taking as much help as possible from technology and make the game fair so that the grievances related to unfair decisions are minimized.

Hawkeye is great, but would be better employed if each side batting and bowling is allowed 3-4 direct appeals to Hawkeye, per innings. We have the tools in place to improve Umpires' Decisions.

There is no point getting emotional and attached to old ways of doing things. The important issue is right decision should be made, out or not out. Cricket as sport has not been making use of technology available and if, the technology is proven to be accurate then it should be used to come to right decision.

There is no point in fans feeling the outcome of the game might have been different and questioning the result. There is no point having rules if they can not be properly enforced. If technology helps with that, then that is the way to go.

Good, insightful piece. Agree on the general point that the on-field umpire, rather than Hawk-eye, should have soverignity on LBWs. However, it may be worthwhile to give the umpire the option to consult Hawk-eye (via radio to the 3rd ump), if he is making the decision basis whether the ball hit the batsman in line with the stumps (or whether it pitched in line with the stumps). So the umpire still retains the authority of the decision, but this will probably increase the probability of him making the correct decision.

I dont know what Sambit thinks of Simon Tauffel post the two lousy decisions against Tendulkar and Ganguly at Trent Bridge. I believe that the umpires have become very trigger happy when it comes to LBWs. That would be fair enough if they were consistent, but many replays on the first day in the same test seemed to indicate Jaffer and Karthik should have been goners much earlier. TV technology seems to be exposing the umpires badly- even super umps like Tauffel seem to be making big gaffes !!

ON FIELD UMPIRES ARE THE BEST JUDGE TO GIVE LBW DECISIONS.HOWKEYE IS NOT SOLUTION FOR LBW. ACTUALLY HWKEYE CREATING PROBLEMS AND DOUBT FOR UMPIRES JUDGEMENT. LBW DECISION JUST LEAVE TO THE ON FIELD UMPIRE OTHERWISE THE EXCITEMENT OF THE GAME AND DECISION WILL NOT BE THERE..

I feel that the game of cricket has become more mechanical since the introduction of high end television techniques like the Hawkeye and stump camera and the snickometer.

To me this has brought a sea change in the way the umpires today make decisions.They are actually caught in No Mans Land because of the pressure that these technologies have created in their minds about making the right decisions.

One wrong decision on the umpires part can change the whole complexion of a game,a series or even on a players individual career.

What happened at Lord's was absolutely ridiculous as far as i am concerned.Kevin pietersen was ruled out by Simon Taufel based on what he actually had seen happening right in front of his eyes.The basic law of cricket says that once an umpire has raised his finger,there is no way he can reverse the decision based on a TV replay.

If that is the case then ICC should enact a law whereby every decision that has to be given should be consulted to the 3rd umpire and then given out.

This will mean that there will be a time when there wont be any umpires on the field.

Just because a colleague in the dressing room saw this and asked Kevin to gO back in my view was absolutely disgusting at the supposed Home of cricket.The chain of events after that where Simon Taufel then consulted the third umpire and reversed the decision was just not gullible.

I am sure if any of our Indian players would have appealed to an umpire about a wrong decision or would have been sent back by his colleagues, it would have raised a huge furore in the cricketing world and every commentator and player from some other country would have flayed our team for unsporting behaviour and the team or its members would have got penalised for the same.

This has been happening for a very long time.

I do feel if an umpire is not allowed to take his own decisions barring the Run outs,it is ruining the basic nature of the game.

Technology helps,but of what use is it if it is not put to its correct use.

I think LBW decisions should be given by third umpire using Hawk Eye Technology.

Umpires are guessing all the time for their decisions. When you are using Hawk Eye you are sure Hawk Eye is not guessing.

The Hawk-Eye is interesting and is a helping tool in making judgements but for the umpires in the middle, it is a job of one split second of a decision to make. Replays after replays would only make the umpires look hapless.

The Umpires decision should be the LAST decision & no player or technology like THE HAWK EYE is bigger than the game!!

If everyone is happy with the Hawk Eye Decision, why should it be a worry. When umpiring decision is not accurate you gladly accept, but if hawk eye might not be correct, we have a problem???? I mean once Hawk Eye is implemented most people dont have a problem accepting the decision since they can see it. Atleast its neutral and surely it can support an umpire when he is not sure and bound to make an uncertain decision. When runout was given by naked eye we had to accept a certain tolerance. Thousands of matches were played without the camera decision. Why not simply let the umpire make the error in that case. Since he cannot detect that minor fraction of the second in run-out same thing in LBW, the minor outside off stump should be ok. If not then they should simply use only the umpire like olden days.

“The basic law of cricket says that once an umpire has raised his finger,[ ]there is no way he can reverse the decision based on a TV replay.”

Well, presumably the statement quoted above is incorrect. The rules certainly don’t mention that an umpire CANNOT alter his decision due to a TV replay. And a rudimentary understanding of cricket rules indicates that clearly an umpire CAN alter his decision without eroding the concept of the umpire’s decision being fainl. The caveat to the latter, though, is that this alteration must be prompt. In the Pietersen case many believed that Taufel was indeed prompt, probably guided by the fact that the rules indicate that a successful withdrawn appeal must be made before the batsmen has left the field.

And generally, the idea of a previously unforeseen technology revealing weaknesses in umpiring, and yet those weaknesses not being addressed, seems rather perverse.

I think this is a fair article.I think we make too much of these umpiring decisions.All the newspapers that went to town on the lbws were strangely silent about Sreesanth.As you rightly said it could have changed the course of the series.Instinctively we know if something is out and umpires will and need to go by their instinct.I think batsmen should use their bat more, then we would not have some of the needless controversies that media generates.Today we have neutral umpires and some days they will have bad outings like batsmen or bowlers.But the quality of umpiring is far superior to the sixties,seventies and the eighties . Let technology be used for things like caught behind, not even to check if the fielder has taken the catch as it will invariably favour the batsmen.The game is too much in favour of batsmen, thank heavens for the appealing ability of Shane Warne.