This is a ball the whole world will remember. There has been a lot of debate over it already. Once Ian Gould gave it out, I was sure it would stay out because all it needed to do was clip the leg stump. And I overheard Sachin tell Gautam Gambhir, "Let me take a chance. Who knows it might save me?" Gambhir advised him against it because he felt he was out, but Sachin insisted.
This was all new for us. This is Hawk-Eye and DRS, and we were not as experienced watching Hawk-Eye predictions and everything but when I watch it now, I think today as a commentator I would have said probably missing leg stump. Because you see where it pitched and where the impact is. So it turned big. If you watch the keeper Kamran Akmal, he has already moved down the leg side and then when it hits him [Tendulkar] on the pad, he comes back towards the stumps to appeal. So because we didn't understand angles as well as we do today, I don't think it is as controversial as it seemed at the time.
When I saw that Ajmal delivery thudding into Sachin's pad, my hand went up in the air because it was quite apparent that the ball would go on to hit middle and leg stump. It wasn't a ball that would've turned enough to miss the leg stump, and it was definitely not going the other way as much either. Tendulkar's decision to review the decision was, perhaps, more in hope than in belief. The Hawk-Eye trajectory taking the ball down the leg side - missing the three stumps - was quite astonishing. You knew that it was an error but an error that couldn't be reversed. My mind went back to another such dismissal in Sri Lanka where the ball was an offbreak but the Hawk-Eye trajectory showed it as a carrom ball turning the other way after pitching and, therefore, missing the stumps. It was a further reiteration of the fact that DRS wasn't foolproof yet; in fact, far from it.
My assessment is that the Hawk-Eye got it right. It was at best clipping the leg stump. Don't get me wrong, it was an extremely close call. It'll fall under the realm of Protagoras Paradox, in that both sides have convincing arguments. Saeed Ajmal is not a big turner, neither was the pitch a rank turner. The impact was within the stumps and post impact the ball landed on the off side, which means it hit the inside of the shin.
Absolutely plumb. That is my observation. Sachin's stride wasn't big. Yes, he was on front foot, but he didn't get a big stride in. If you see the trajectory of the ball, it is not loopy. It tells you it was bowled fast. Saeed Ajmal has himself said he didn't try to turn the ball. He bowled from mid-crease so he had an angle on it, but no turn. Because of the trajectory, it stayed low, so height is out of question. And it hit the inside of his shin, in front of middle after pitching just outside off. It would have hit the stumps. I can't say how the mistake was made.
Hawk-eye doesn't feel the need to clarify further after it made an explanation back in the day. There were two discrepancies that were popularly observed then. Firstly, the point of impact on the predictive-path replay was different from the last time the ball was seen in the replay. Hawk-Eye said the frame rate on TV cameras was 50 frames per second, and that they didn't capture the actual point of impact. Hawk-Eye cameras used the run-out camera too to calibrate and determine the actual interception point, the explanation said.