I have the greatest regard for Bob Woolmer, both as a coach and an original thinker, and it is wonderful to have him in this discussion. He presents an insider’s view and his voice carries the biggest weight in this panel. But I still can't be persuaded out of my ambivalence. Let me elaborate my discomfort a bit more.
I have come to regard Hawk-Eye as reliable, and there is no doubt that in my mind that despite its margin of error, it gets more lbw decisions right than the umpire. I have no hesitation in immediately using it for line decisions for lbw appeals, just like tennis is likely to use it for line calls. In fact, it's a no-brainer. Umpires, who face ridicule on the basis of visual evidence provided by the television camera, should have access to that evidence in quick time. It must be done instantly and in an unobtrusive way. And I believe it can be done with a hand-held gadget without referring it to the third umpire.
But I have a problem with the second aspect of Hawk-Eye. After the ball hits the bat, the process is predictive. No doubt it is scientific, and I am inclined to believe that it’s far, far more accurate than the naked eye. But still, it is predictive. In case of all the line decisions the evidence is right before our eyes. In case of run-outs and stumpings, the bat is short of the crease; for lbws, we can see the ball pitch outside the leg stump, but for the path of the ball after it hits the pad, we need to rest our faith on a predictive technology. It's too much to ask for. Called me old fashioned, but even if you convince me that it's based on missile technology, I can't give my unconditional faith. For what my eyes can't see, I will accept the umpire's decision in the full knowledge that it is fallible.
