All eyes on Hawk-Eye

	Out or not out: umpires might soon be able to ask Hawk-Eye for help © Getty Images Enlarge

For the television viewer, Hawk-Eye has been part of the cricket experience for six years. In one way it provides a final answer to the arguments over whether a batsman has received a rough call or got away with a plumb lbw shout. However, those arguments have given way to debates about how accurate the system is and what part it should play in the sport's future.

A trial in England to assess the accuracy of the tracking software ahead of the ICC Cricket Committee meeting in Dubai next week was disrupted by rain, and so a number of key issues surrounding the technology remain unanswered. It is now hoped intensive testing can take place after the Lord's Test in mid May, but this means the ICC committee will have less information to work than had been planned.

The session, due to take place at Winchester College in southern England, was arranged at the behest of the ICC before it decides what role, if any, Hawk-Eye can take in aiding decision-making in international cricket.

The ICC requested that the MCC oversee the trial on its behalf, the main purpose of which was to test the accuracy of the virtual reality pictures that Hawk-Eye produces. The ICC also needs proof that the system is reliable - in that it will be available whenever needed.

Hawk-Eye as an entertainment aid is one thing, but being used alongside umpires for key decisions brings a whole new set of pressures and expectations. Players and spectators have long since accepted the faillibility of on-field umpires, and mistakes are part of the game, but if technology is to play a greater role, they are unlikely to be so charitable if the computer gets it wrong. This is where the role of the MCC and ICC lies, as they assess whether now is the time to take a significant leap.

Paul Hawkins, Hawk-Eye's founder, was joined by Keith Bradshaw, the MCC chief executive, and John Stephenson, the MCC head of cricket. Tony Lewis, the former England captain and chairman of the MCC World Cricket Committee, and Geoff Boycott, who is a committee member, also attended to share their views.

Lewis said that it was important to remember that if Hawk-Eye was used it would be because it would "aid the umpire, not be better than the umpire".

Hawkins admitted that bringing the technology into cricket decision-making created "a lot more issues than [in] tennis" where the system is successfully used at all Grand Slams, apart from the French Open, and in most other major tournaments. The difference with tennis is that Hawk-Eye's role is confined to clear line decisions rather than any prediction of what the ball might have done. Hawkins added, though, that he was now confident in his system if it were to be adopted to help umpires. "Two years ago I wouldn't have been comfortable, but now I'm happy in the system."

He gave a demonstration - with pre-recorded footage, rather than the planned live session - of the three different uses of Hawk-Eye that are under consideration. The first involves using it purely to judge if the ball has pitched outside leg stump or hit the batsman outside the line of off stump, both areas where there is often no doubt once television footage and Hawk-Eye have been used.

The main subject of debate is how to use the system in relation to whether the ball is hitting the stumps in an lbw appeal. One proposal uses Hawk-Eye only up to the point of impact with the batsman, leaving the rest to the discretion of the third umpire. This would appear a half-way house because TV would still show the full replays, further highlighting any mistakes made by the umpires.

Another option is go all the way and use the predictive path technology - which is what TV viewers see - and make it available to the third official. This would show the predicted route of the ball beyond where it hit the batsman and also give an ellipse of uncertainty, which basically means adding in a margin of error, an equivalent to the human element of umpiring.

It is likely that in the event of a decision being referred which post-Hawk-Eye still shows an element of doubt either way (for example, a ball that is clipping leg stump), the on-field decision would remain. This is understood to be favoured by a number of the people involved as it allows the on-field umpires to maintain their authority. Martin Crowe, another member of the MCC Cricket Committee, prefers the option of not using the predictive part of the software although wasn't shown a completed version incorporating the margin of error.

The use of Hawk-Eye is just one part of the debate surrounding technology. A referrals system is due to be trialled during the first Test between England and South Africa at Lord's in July if both boards agree. Under this, replays could be used for a whole range of decisions, with each team allowed to ask for the third umpire a certain number of times in each innings. However, Stephenson doubted whether batsmen would risk wasting their referrals on tight lbw appeals that may or may not be overturned by Hawk-Eye.

The only way, though, to really find out is to play out the scenarios in match conditions. Laboratory tests and artificial surroundings can only prove so much. Cricket is changing on many fronts and how the game meets the technology challenge is another fascinating part of the future.