Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[feverpitch]

Some weeks ago, myself, kban and others suggested that the Hawkeye technology and the results it showed should be accepted with a certain amount of scepticism. Later, kban made a very good point, that unlike in tennis, where the point of contact of the ball with the playing surface is in contention, the predictive capacity may actually be quite good, but since in cricket, during lbw decisions, the ball is in the air and has quite a distance to go still before it can hit the wicket [or miss it if you will], the accuracy in predictions is likely to decrease. Moreover, there is a slight matter of the bails needing to be dislodged for a batsman to be bowled, which requires a substantial impact on the wicket by the ball, and therefore, should invalidate the faintest of overlaps between the image of the ball and that of the wicket that hawkeye often shows indicating a +ve lbw decision. The following article takes a different view but arrives at the same conclusions. The author claims that the increased usage of this and other technology has psychologically affected modern umpires, emboldening them to give +ve decisions on marginal cases, based on :
a. the chances of the technology validating that faintest of overlaps and keeping him in the clear;
b. the possibility of escaping scrutiny of the umpires capabilities that takes place on instant TV replays creating unnecessary pressure on them to 'perform'.



http://cricket.indiatimes.com/Is_Hawkeye_affecting_umpires_decisions/articleshow/2245374.cms

Is Hawkeye affecting umpires' decisions?

TNN / Partha Bhaduri


NEW DELHI, July 30: Is Hawkeye hitting the bull’s eye as a predictive tool for judging leg-before-wicket decisions? There is no doubt it makes the presentation more interesting, but increasingly, it has started playing God. And it’s only natural that this will have some effect on the umpires out in the middle. The question is, to what extent has the intense scrutiny of Hawkeye’s missile-tracking technology affected an umpire’s decision-making? And how is the game changing as a result?

The 14 LBW decisions at Lord’s (which included some howlers) and Simon Taufel’s decision at Trent Bridge to give Tendulkar out for offering his pad when the ball was clearly outside the line might have elicited the debate but it only points to a recent trend. Many umpires, both domestic and international, have their doubts about the technology but feel Hawkeye’s evidence has prompted umpires to become bolder while adjudicating LBW dismissals.

But one of the most respected of them all, former umpire Dickie Bird, feels the technology is leading the game down the garden path. "Hawkeye is rubbish," he told TOI, "All it has given the game is controversy, and put umpires under more stress. More than 50 per cent of the time it shows the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps or brushed a coat of paint on the bails when any district-level umpire could have told you it could not have been given LBW. Hawkeye cannot tell you the bounce of the pitch, the ball’s deviation in the air, the seam or spin of the ball... But under-pressure umpires are giving more front-foot LBWs than ever before. It’s a good thing for the bowlers, especially the spinners, but where will it end?"

Bird thinks there have been "a lot of mistakes made" in the Trent Bridge Test "by some good umpires" and feels "it is because of technology". "The authority of the umpire is compromised."

However, Dr Paul Hawkins, inventor of the technology, feels, "Hawkeye has never imposed itself on any sport, whether cricket or tennis. It is a decision-making tool to resolve the tightest calls, in places where human judgment is no longer enough".

Another former umpire, AV Jayaprakash, says: "It is an innovative tool, no doubt, and maybe what it has done is to readjust the line of sight of umpire. This prompts umpires to give more front-foot LBWs because they’ve seen that Hawkeye shows the ball hitting the stumps anyway."

But how does one judge the accuracy of a predictive tool? More than six cameras are placed around the stadium: At long-on, long-off, fine-leg, third-man and two square of the wicket. Three of these capture 3D images of the ball’s trajectory at 120 frames per second at various places till the point of impact - say the ball hitting the pad or the bat - and then predict its trajectory beyond that point using factors like swing and deviation. Bird feels this is the grey area, and on sunny days the ball’s shadow might even hinder the mechanism.

The processing and simulation is through computers but these are operated by humans. In short, there might be no way to judge the minimum performance requirement of the technology. "It’s only an inference," says former umpire, SK Bansal, "I don’t agree it is influencing umpires. But yes, if Hawkeye shows a ball in line was hitting the stumps, and the umpire doesn’t give it, there are murmurs."

The technology’s accuracy apart, that is what it’s all about. It’s a more or less accepted intrusion and will have ramifications. Some umpires feel it is compromising the game but they don’t have definite proof that this is influencing the course of game. Even Steve Bucknor made some insinuations a while back, but has since refused to comment.

A different insight is offered by Bird: "Why do you think the ICC decided to refer LBW decisions to the third umpire in the ICC Champions Trophy in 2004, but then discontinued it? The umpire would like it if the heat was taken off him. It’s actually top-order batsmen who don’t want it, because they are used to getting the benefit of doubt from umpires. With Hawkeye, they would be getting out all the time! In tennis it’s only used to judge line calls, and already the great Roger Federer is dead against it."

There’s clearly no one viewpoint on the issue, except one: The Hawkeye, and by extension the new Red Zone/Hot Spot, the Snickometer and the super Slo-Mo cameras, all mean that an umpire’s actions are now judged in almost microscopic detail. And that could make life difficult for everybody out in the middle, especially if the technology isn’t foolproof.

[broadbat]

As I have said in one of my earlier posts introduce the 'challenge' as in Wimbledon. Two wrong challenges per team per innings. This will correct 90% of the wrong decisions. The balance 10% we can live with. Use Hawkeye for want of anything better. It will be the same for both teams.

[keep-it-cool]

In any case, I like umpires being bolder with LBWs. They are much better than the "not outers" ...which allows batsmen to just plonk their foot down the pitch and hide behind the benefit of doubt shield. Anyone remember Padams?

Hawkeye may not be 100% accurate ...but it is still the most accurate tool out there. I would take its contribution constructively.

[toney]

Later, kban made a very good point, that unlike in tennis, where the point of contact of the ball with the playing surface is in contention, the predictive capacity may actually be quite good, but since in cricket, during lbw decisions, the ball is in the air and has quite a distance to go still before it can hit the wicket [or miss it if you will], the accuracy in predictions is likely to decrease.

Why does it matter whether the ball has to go a couple of feet or more before it hits the stumps? Even when the umpire makes his decision, he is doing so under the assumption that the ball will continue to travel in the same direction as before it hit the stumps. HawkEye predicts (or claims to predict) this path exactly. There is no issue here.
I know that you and kban didnt mean this but some people, on being rapped on the full by a spinner claim that the ball would have spun after pitching and so they can't be given out lbw. Is what you are saying something similar?

Moreover, there is a slight matter of the bails needing to be dislodged for a batsman to be bowled, which requires a substantial impact on the wicket by the ball, and therefore, should invalidate the faintest of overlaps between the image of the ball and that of the wicket that hawkeye often shows indicating a +ve lbw decision.

How many times have you see the ball hit the stumps without dislodging the bails? Barring inside edges and ricochets off the pads, I have seen one instance where the ball actually fails to dislodge the bails on direct contact. This isn't reason enough to discredit HE's use.

Finally, HE has never claimed to be inaccurate. Whatever is predicted is claimed to be accurate There are a few instances (less than 1%, I think) where the software is not able to predict the path. In such cases, the results are ignored anyhow.

[feverpitch]

Later, kban made a very good point, that unlike in tennis, where the point of contact of the ball with the playing surface is in contention, the predictive capacity may actually be quite good, but since in cricket, during lbw decisions, the ball is in the air and has quite a distance to go still before it can hit the wicket [or miss it if you will], the accuracy in predictions is likely to decrease.

Why does it matter whether the ball has to go a couple of feet or more before it hits the stumps? Even when the umpire makes his decision, he is doing so under the assumption that the ball will continue to travel in the same direction as before it hit the stumps. HawkEye predicts (or claims to predict) this path exactly. There is no issue here.

The issue is this: the author argues that because the Hawkeye/TV commentators claims an out even for the faintest overlap, the on field umpires are goaded to give a positive lbw decision to cases where they normally would have given the benefit of doubt, so as to escape being castigated by the media/public in case of a marginally wrong decision.

I know that you and kban didnt mean this but some people, on being rapped on the full by a spinner claim that the ball would have spun after pitching and so they can't be given out lbw. Is what you are saying something similar?

No.

Moreover, there is a slight matter of the bails needing to be dislodged for a batsman to be bowled, which requires a substantial impact on the wicket by the ball, and therefore, should invalidate the faintest of overlaps between the image of the ball and that of the wicket that hawkeye often shows indicating a +ve lbw decision.

How many times have you see the ball hit the stumps without dislodging the bails? Barring inside edges and ricochets off the pads, I have seen one instance where the ball actually fails to dislodge the bails on direct contact. This isn't reason enough to discredit HE's use.

Even if the bail would have failed to dislodge on one occasion out of the several decisions where an lbw was given, that would be a wrong decision, wouldn't it?

Actually, my point is not to nitpick, but only to suggest that the HE is not the Jesus-tool [as an analogy with the current nomenclature of the i-Phone] it is often made out to be on the TV replays by the commentators.

Also, do note in my original post I had : ...  suggested that the Hawkeye technology and the results it showed should be accepted with a certain amount of scepticism. Nowhere had I discredited the HE outright, as you suggest.

Finally, HE has never claimed to be inaccurate.

Whatever is predicted is claimed to be accurate

Come again?

There are a few instances (less than 1%, I think) where the software is not able to predict the path. In such cases, the results are ignored anyhow.

How are they ignored?

[WicketView]

Later, kban made a very good point, that unlike in tennis, where the point of contact of the ball with the playing surface is in contention, the predictive capacity may actually be quite good, but since in cricket, during lbw decisions, the ball is in the air and has quite a distance to go still before it can hit the wicket [or miss it if you will], the accuracy in predictions is likely to decrease. 

Why does it matter whether the ball has to go a couple of feet or more before it hits the stumps? Even when the umpire makes his decision, he is doing so under the assumption that the ball will continue to travel in the same direction as before it hit the stumps. HawkEye predicts (or claims to predict) this path exactly. There is no issue here. I know that you and kban didnt mean this but some people, on being rapped on the full by a spinner claim that the ball would have spun
after pitching and so they can't be given out lbw. Is what you are saying something similar?

Moreover, there is a slight matter of the bails needing to be dislodged for a batsman to be bowled, which requires a substantial impact on the wicket by the ball, and therefore, should invalidate the faintest of overlaps between the image of the ball and that of the wicket that hawkeye often shows indicating a +ve lbw decision. 

How many times have you see the ball hit the stumps without dislodging the bails? Barring inside edges and ricochets off the pads, I have seen one instance where the ball actually fails to dislodge the bails on direct contact. This isn't reason enough to discredit HE's use.

To your last two points I may add that both of these cases are irrelevant. While the rule or law for a batsman being bowled clearly requires the bails to be dislodged, the rule for LBW does not require that the batsman be bowled if the ball was not  intercepted, simply that it hits the wicket. Similarly, the case of a spinning ball pitching after hitting the pads and spinning away is irrelevant, as the rule has to do with what it was doing before hitting the pad, not what it could do after. However, the ball being intercepted a couple of feet away can increase uncertainty (more below).

Finally, HE has never claimed to be inaccurate. Whatever is predicted is claimed to be accurate There are a few instances (less than 1%, I think) where the software is not able to predict the path. In such cases, the results are ignored anyhow.

I think Kban claimed that HE had illustrated cases it was inaccurate.  I would add that there is absolutely no way that  it can be 100 percent accurate even in other cases. There is not, and cannot be an algorithm that  does that. The reason is simple to understand ... whatever your method, it  has to be based on measurements of the ball's position and velocities,
and their changes before impact, and all measurements have errors, however  small. In such systems, assuming the same error in measuring the velocity (direction of motion), the error in predicting the position of the ball,
when it hits the stumps will clearly be greater (at first approx, linearly with the distance travelled after interception) if the point of interception is further away from the stumps.
In the world of precision measurements, people therefore strive to model the errors in their instruments, usually quantified in terms of probability distributions. If used with Hawk Eye, for example, this would allow one to quantitavely state a probability that the ball's position would be within a two dimensional region larger than the
ball's projection when it hits the plane of the stumps. But HawkEye never shows this. The reason could be that this region is so close to the ball's projection that it does not matter in most cases, but would matter in the cases where the ball is predicted to graze the stumps. If the makers of HawkEye have tested their product well (which I assume they have), I think they would have done the work involved in finding this region, but have simply not put it into the apparatus. Possibly, this can be done, and used to quantify questions on 'what is doubt' raised elsewhere on this DG.
I am certain, that if you invest enough on the technology, you can get much  better results than human umpires. Of course, replacing human umpires by  technology would be making the game really slow ... and that is a big problem. But, I think technology can be built to do the job better in every other way.

Finally, returning to the thread title, I think everyone should understand that  the human equivalent of the region I talked about could well be larger than HE. Then if we do use human umpires, there would be a lot of 'outs' according to HE, which the umpire should declare not out. And he should not be blamed for that at all. Of course, this is not practised by the commentators. They routinely say  ... that was not out, look at the hawkeye replay, see that the ball is grazing the stump, and say ... 'oh that was a very good decision'. I think having HE is a good thing, but commentator should understand/be made to understand the difference. And while I have the  same frustrating memories of  Padams as many of you, I don't think   umpires giving more LBW decisions like this is a good thing. It is  worthwhile asking of rules of benefit of doubt or the like should be done away with to make the game more bowler friendly and hence  level the playing field a bit. But doing it without a clear change in  rules, is a sure shot prescription for anarchy. I would even go as far  as suggesting that this is simply bad and erroneous umpiring hiding behind the excuse of 'positive umpiring'.

[toney]

WV,
On the first part of your post, I guess you are agreeing with me?

Second part (About the accuracy): Yeah, I agree that HE can never be 100% accurate. But I believe the HE people would have done some kind of analysis to see the degree of error and factored that in while trying to predict the path of the ball. What do the rules say about lbw? Out if:
- the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps?
Or
- the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps and dislodge the bails?

If it is the former, why the need to think about a ball grazing the stumps? It is as good as hitting middle stump halfway up at 90 mph.

I agree with you that just because a batsman pads up and it makes for boring cricket (for some) doesn't mean he has to be given out. Nor do I think that the batsman should lose the benefit of doubt (even if it is not within the rules) in such cases.

[fineleg]

As I have said in one of my earlier posts introduce the 'challenge' as in Wimbledon. Two wrong challenges per team per innings. This will correct 90% of the wrong decisions. The balance 10% we can live with. Use Hawkeye for want of anything better. It will be the same for both teams.

1. Is the Appeals system being tried out anywhere? (in county, domestics etc). If not, why not - is no one interested in the 2 or 3 challenges per team?

2. Even with HE errors, watching something in replays(original speed) + slow motion, may give a chance for the TV umpire to reconsider the field umpires' decision which are made in an instant. If there seems to  be some obvious doubts, then the TV umpire can over-rule the field umpire.

This is not like HE has to be perfect and we will rely ONLY on HE (atleast not yet, hopefully we will get there some day). But in the meanwhile, having 2 or 3 challenges/appeals by the team per innings is still a good middle-ground that is currently doable.

[WicketView]

WV,
On the first part of your post, I guess you are agreeing with me?

I am agreeing with you about the issues on dislodging the bails or the ball spinning away after pitching. However, If the ball strikes the pads when the batsman is a good stretch forward, it is quite likely that the degree of accuracy of predictions would change. And the benefit of doubt rule might be applicable, in a way similar (but perhaps less) to what is expected with human umpires if the batsman stretches forward.

Second part (About the accuracy): Yeah, I agree that HE can never be 100% accurate. But I believe the HE people would have done some kind of analysis to see the degree of error and factored that in while trying to predict the path of the ball.

Well, I do believe that they have done an analysis of errors in their procedure.  My point is that they do not show it. Now, the reason for that could (in principle) be that the this larger region at a decent level (say 95 % chance) is a micro-meter larger in  radius, in which case it does not matter ever. But, that certainly is not the case, give the uncontrolled nature of the measurements from cameras outside the ground.

The quote from Kban, that was being talked about was from HawkEye developers themselves. And they had explained the circumstances under which HawkEye should not be trusted.  If I recall correctly, these were the cases where the ball had pitched just before hitting the pad. Because the direction of the ball after pitching (and the relevant one as the decision is based on the ball before striking the pad), has not been measured well (too little time, maybe blocked angles etc.) . So , in such cases, the region of uncertainty would be very large. To me, this suggests that they region of uncertainty even in the good cases could be of significance when just grazing the stumps. So, what I am suggesting is that they should show this large region, and when that encompasses parts that are outside the wicket, one should give the benefit of doubt to the batsman. (And nothing is lost, as a human umpire would not be able to say that either)

What do the rules say about lbw? Out if:
- the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps?
Or
- the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps and dislodge the bails?

If it is the former, why the need to think about a ball grazing the stumps? It is as good as hitting middle stump halfway up at 90 mph.

The former. The reason why it is different, is that if HE predicts grazing, the region of uncertainly is much more likely to include missing the stumps altogether.

I agree with you that just because a batsman pads up and it makes for boring cricket (for some) doesn't mean he has to be given out. Nor do I think that the batsman should lose the benefit of doubt (even if it is not within the rules) in such cases.

[toney]

WV,
Got your point and I agree. Thanks for the clarificaiton.

[feverpitch]

WV, thanks for putting my thoughts in better words. 

[LosingNow]

WV:
Excellent posts on the issue. Applause

[kban1]

Sorry for coming late to the issue but a few points to an already well reasoned debate:

1) Diff between tennis and cricket -- in tennis, HE (thanks for the acronym toney) recreates an actual event. In cricket it predicts

2) In cricket a ball striking a ball flush on the pad or boot (that is without pitching) warrants an atomatic lbw if the ball is in line with the stumps --no HE required, basic umpiring tenet.

3) The issue with HE arises when the ball pitches a short distance before hitting the pad. In this case, according to HE inventors, there are insufficient data points for HE to hudge trajectory, deviation, and bounce after pitching to make an accurate prediction.

According to HE inventors, replays of such deliveries by HE should be ignored -- and in fact in Aus 2003, when this technology was first showcased, thats exactly what happened.

However, HE inventors warned that the usage of these guidelines is dependent on the television production company that has licensed the technology from HE. In subesequent series', the use of HE has increased manifold, so much so that television producers are providing HE reconstructions of deliveries that are pitching inches before the pad, and are using that insufficent data to generate HE replays  -- something that even HE inventors warned against.

4) HE is a predictive technology -- some of the umpires including Dicky Bird are correct that despite several onsite cameras and mountains of data, the technology cannot accurately account for peculiarities in ball behavior (such as late swing) due to atmospheric conditions -- as a case in point, in heavily swinging atmospheres, balls swing very late, and on rare occasions change directions twice over.

While the late swing is visible to the naked eye, HE will have inadequate datapoints to calculate accurately the change due to late swing. Its predictive analysis (much like a regression line of best fit) will still be heavily weighted by the weight of data points (more numerous) prior to the late swing --therefore its recreation is likely to show the ball hitting the stumps rather than missing them. As a regular TV viewer, sometimes you just know that HE is wrong, and unfortunately, for people unaware of how the process works, it seems that HE is right, umpire wrong because HE is god's tool.

5) Finally, to the topic of whether HE influences umpires -- there is a thread (look for it in the CV classics board on lbw's) where there is an article from CI where a top international umpire under conditions of anonymity actually claims that HE has allowed many umpires to take bold liberties in adjudging lbws -- and my personal opinion is that this emboldening might be leading to some poorer decisions, again because of the implicit trust in this tool without realizing its limitations and the misuse of some television production companies in HE's implementation -- see point 3 above.

[broadbat]

Actually I am a little curious to know how HEye emboldens an umpire to make a decision? I would have thought that it would make him a lot more cautious. Given a choice I am sure that umpires would choose to err on the side of caution. He would rather be known as someone who is difficult to get a decision from rather than a person who raises his finger for every appeal. He would be unpopular with most batsmen around the world if he gave wrong decisions, and we all know that there are more batsmen than bowlers in every team.

[broadbat]

Simon Taufel’s decision at Trent Bridge to give Tendulkar out for offering his pad when the ball was clearly outside the line

Perfectly valid as batsman was not offering a shot.

Law 36 (Leg before wicket)
1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

[kban1]

Actually I am a little curious to know how HEye emboldens an umpire to make a decision? I would have thought that it would make him a lot more cautious. Given a choice I am sure that umpires would choose to err on the side of caution. He would rather be known as someone who is difficult to get a decision from rather than a person who raises his finger for every appeal. He would be unpopular with most batsmen around the world if he gave wrong decisions, and we all know that there are more batsmen than bowlers in every team.

Because HE tends to show more LBW appeals as having some validity -- its a bowler's umpire if you will

[broadbat]

Actually I am a little curious to know how HEye emboldens an umpire to make a decision? I would have thought that it would make him a lot more cautious. Given a choice I am sure that umpires would choose to err on the side of caution. He would rather be known as someone who is difficult to get a decision from rather than a person who raises his finger for every appeal. He would be unpopular with most batsmen around the world if he gave wrong decisions, and we all know that there are more batsmen than bowlers in every team.

Because HE tends to show more LBW appeals as having some validity -- its a bowler's umpire if you will

Probably it is right 90% of the time. How can we disprove it? Who knows, maybe batsmen have been getting away with murder all this time!

[kban1]

Simon Taufel’s decision at Trent Bridge to give Tendulkar out for offering his pad when the ball was clearly outside the line

Perfectly valid as batsman was not offering a shot.

Law 36 (Leg before wicket)
1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

no, it is not valid -- please read point e above in the rules.

for your benefit, here it is in full:

The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball
and
(b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket
and
(c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person
and
(d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat
and
(e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

The conjunction connecting points d and e above is "and", not "or" -- this is pertinent because  the ball from Collingwood was not going to hit the wicket. Therefore the decision against SRT was not valid.

[kban1]

Probably it is right 90% of the time. How can we disprove it? Who knows, maybe batsmen have been getting away with murder all this time!

Maybe, and then again, given the possibility that umpires are being emboldened by the possible improper usage of this so called "god" of lbw technologies, it just maybe that its the bowlers who are finding a windfall like manna from heaven.

[broadbat]

Simon Taufel’s decision at Trent Bridge to give Tendulkar out for offering his pad when the ball was clearly outside the line

Perfectly valid as batsman was not offering a shot.

Law 36 (Leg before wicket)
1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

no, it is not valid -- please read point e above in the rules.

for your benefit, here it is in full:

The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball
and
(b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket
and
(c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person
and
(d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat
and
(e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

The conjunction connecting points d and e above is "and", not "or" -- this is pertinent because  the ball from Collingwood was not going to hit the wicket. Therefore the decision against SRT was not valid.

The article above only says that the ball hit him outside the line and does not speak of it hitting the wicket. I only quoted with respect to that. However we all know that ST was wrong in his decision, only confirmed by who else but none other than the much maligned HEye. Now can we suggest that ST made that decision because he thought he would be backed by HEye? It was a bad decision,period. I have however noticed that umpires these days are not very kind to batsmen not offering shots and padding up to balls outside the off stump. ST incidentally is supposed to be the ICC best umpire for the past two years. Speaks volumes about either the method off selection or the rest of the lot.

[kban1]

The article above only says that the ball hit him outside the line and does not speak of it hitting the wicket. I only quoted with respect to that. However we all know that ST was wrong in his decision, only confirmed by who else but none other than the much maligned HEye. Now can we suggest that ST made that decision because he thought he would be backed by HEye? It was a bad decision,period. I have however noticed that umpires these days are not very kind to batsmen not offering shots and padding up to balls outside the off stump. ST incidentally is supposed to be the ICC best umpire for the past two years. Speaks volumes about either the method off selection or the rest of the lot.

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.