Australia in India 2017 March 13, 2017

The 2mm that went against David Warner

ESPNcricinfo staff
179

A close-up image of the Hawk-Eye projection on the David Warner dismissal, as provided by Hawk-Eye © Hawk-Eye

Hawk-Eye has explained the mechanics behind the David Warner lbw dismissal in the second innings of the Bengaluru Test, which to the naked eye seemed a dubious "umpire's call" on the point of impact.

Here is ESPNcricinfo's commentary of the call:

9.1 83.0 kph, lbw first ball. Long long chat, and they decide to review. Warner doesn't look convinced, but he has reviewed it. Warner has picked a ball too full to sweep and is beaten. The question is, has he got an edge or has it straightened enough? This is pitched outside off, the ball has straightened, and I don't see any part of ball in line. However, the machine is showing "umpire's call". I don't know how. I must be wrong, but I will need an explanation from somebody here. Don't see any part of ball in line. They show umpire's call. Both on impact and the stumps. On many more replays, perhaps one mm of the ball hit him in line. Oof 42/2

Australia ended up losing that review, and that quite possibly cost them later on; they would likely have challenged a Shaun Marsh lbw call if they had both their reviews in hand, and, as replays showed, Marsh would have been allowed to bat on.

Australia's official Twitter handle tweeted an image of the Hawk-Eye projection of the Warner dismissal.

In that image, to the naked eye, there seems daylight between the point of impact and the line of the stumps. The ESPNcricinfo commentary said in relation to the image:

Make your own minds if this was "umpire's call". My naked eye sees nothing, but I also know once you agree to use a machine you have to agree with it.

The machine has now explained how it returned an umpire's call. ESPNcricinfo has seen a Hawk-Eye video that removes the batsman from the image, and zooms in on the point of the impact from the top, as they do in tennis. That shows 2mm of the ball in line with the stumps.

"Although it may have appeared on first glance that the impact was slightly outside the line of off stump, in fact there was actually 2mm of the ball inside the outside edge of off stump, thus making the impact 'umpire's call', resulting in the original decision of out remaining," Hawk-Eye said.

It was unfortunate for Warner and Australia that they were done in by such a minute margin, but it was not inaccurate.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  •   Cricinfouser on March 17, 2017, 3:32 GMT

    What Indian player do or do not do is not Aussies job. so if Virat doesn't react on that or ask question on that decision is by all mean his and Indian teams decision. You have to admit that its poor umpiring what we are seeing in this series. Probably because umpires are standing in the middle of top 2 teams clash so that pressure may be there but what was amazing was even after reviewing they gave him out and it resulted in lost man. In initial days Indian team use to blame that ausses are aggressive and they use bad language but what i see in these series was just opposite. If you want to show aggressiveness then please go ahead and make century or take 8 wickets haul. Poor Indian player would not have even thought that Aussies will come with so much conviction to Win the series.

  • Rowayton on March 16, 2017, 1:11 GMT

    Whether Warner was out or Kohli was out or whatever is immaterial. In my view the DRS rule that was used for the Warner dismissal is inconsistent with the Laws of Cricket. That says that the 'point of impact' has to be between stump and stump. Now if you've ever been hit by a cricket ball, which just to remind you all is roundish, you will know that you are not hit by the whole width of the ball. So in a case like Warner's, while 2mm of the ball may have been between stump and stump, the part of the ball that hit him, or the 'point of impact', was not. As far as I'm concerned, umpire's call on point of impact should be abolished - Hawkeye on point of impact is at least as accurate as line calls in tennis. If half the ball's inside the line of the stumps it's out; if less than half it's not out. Simple.

  • dynamco on March 16, 2017, 0:05 GMT

    Comment: So the ball can legally vary in circumference by 5mm and the accuracy of Hawkeye is stated as 5mm. A possible variation of 10mm. If the technology' stated accuracy is 5mm then this should become the norm and Warner would not have been given out.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye Hawk-Eye is not infallible and is accurate to within 5 millimetres (0.19 inch) but is generally trusted as an impartial second opinion in sports.[2 https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-5-the-ball/ Law 5.1 Weight and size The ball, when new, shall weigh not less than 5½ ounces/155.9 g, nor more than 5¾ ounces/163 g, and shall measure not less than 8 13/16 in / 22.4 cm, nor more than 9 in / 22.9 cm in circumference.

  • Pelham_Barton on March 15, 2017, 15:23 GMT

    cricfan0913637762 on March 14, 2017, 10:27 GMT: First, this is to do with the position of the ball where it actually made contact with the pad, not where it was projected to hit the stumps. Second, the basic LBW law refers to whether the ball would have hit the wicket, not whether it would have had a sufficiently strong contact to knock the bails off.

  • Cricinfouser on March 15, 2017, 10:12 GMT

    DRS is just another game within the game - from that pov its interesting. We're asking the players to roll the dice based on what they think they saw on the field. Unfortunately its being used to gamble more than it's being used to overturn the "howlers". Also unfortunately umpires actually seem much more ready to give batsmen out rather than being overturned by Hawkeye. Its just human nature, no-one wants their decisions questioned. Given the tech surely software could be written to give almost instant results - out or not out.

  • RaviUnadkat on March 15, 2017, 5:50 GMT

    Forget about millimeter stuff, Is the ball hitting stump ? yes/no; YES !! alright then he is out. It does not make sense to measure the impact in sizes, its all about impact of the ball on the stump and here it is, and he is out.

    As said earlier, DRS is many a times Umpire Decision Enforcer.

    My point is that every player while batting or bowling should get one chance to review the decision. It's very unfair that team is given 2 reviews and then umpire becomes god. Or there should not be any limit of reviews. All decision should be reviewed automatically.

  • disco_bob on March 14, 2017, 23:48 GMT

    Who chooses which frame to use for the drs impact. The one used for the actual decision was slightly after impact, ball was coming in and on its way off the pad it would track closer to the line of the stump. Really needs to be investigated.

  • ravi147 on March 14, 2017, 22:22 GMT

    @CRICFAN32896473 Australian Media exaggerate things to such an extent that every team and player apart from Australian team are the Villains and the Australian players are the Gods of Cricket. Thats the reason every wrong decision and every small incident and sledging is being given so much of attention.

  • RVC-38 on March 14, 2017, 21:44 GMT

    The batsman was lucky there the leading edge fell between the fielders, the batsman was lucky there the inside edge bounced over the stumps, the batsman was lucky there simultaneous edge and pad, the batsman was lucky there....... the ball was hitting the stumps but umpires call means it's not out.....

  • Zanim on March 14, 2017, 15:05 GMT

    Those are the present laws of the game bumstead. If you want them changed then there is a platform for that.

  • No featured comments at the moment.