With umpiring decisions hitting the headlines again, it can only be a matter of time before the call for more technological aids for the men in the middle is heard. The umpire at the centre of the recent storms, Ian Robinson of Zimbabwe, even apologised for mistakes he made in the third Test in Perth between Australia and New Zealand. He commented that television replays were more revealing than the human eye.

Slow-motion replays and referrals to the third umpire have become the norm for adjudicating line decisions. Not only are they accepted, but they may also add to the spectacle and drama of the occasion. Catches might well be next to come under the microscope. However, the big breakthrough will come when lbw decisions are determined by technology.

As viewers to televised cricket in England will be aware, Hawk-Eye is ready and waiting. The brainchild of Dr. Paul Hawkins and his team at Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd. of Romsey in Hampshire, the popular concept is that the device is a product of laser technology used for tracking missiles. There is no more than an elementary truth in that, but tracking fast-flying objects in a defence environment certainly comes into the development picture.

For those not familiar with it, a series of special, computer-linked cameras track the course of the ball from the bowler's hand to the moment it hits the pad. Using proven predictive techniques, the simulation graphics then show, from a variety of angles, where the ball would have gone had the pad not got in the way.

It shows where it pitched, therefore whether it was outside leg stump, the line it was set upon and the height it was going. Basically, three of the vital elements an umpire has to consider when the bowler, the fielders and a good proportion of the crowd are all screaming at him.

The two questions most commonly asked are: a) how accurate is it? and b) how long does it take to come up with a decision?

Paul Hawkins has a ready answer for question a). "We can say in most cases where the ball would have passed the stumps to within five millimetres. And like good umpires, Hawk-Eye does take into account where the ball pitched in relation to where it hit the batsman and how far the ball still has to travel before going on to the stumps.

"The degree of accuracy achieved is therefore much higher than could be expected of any human umpire. As an example, there were 21 lbw decisions given last summer when Hawk-Eye was being used and it was found that 13 of them were hitting the stumps." He did not expand on the other eight decisions about which batsmen might feel aggrieved with some justification.

The key thing is that the umpires who have examined it have, in general, come round to the idea that it is accurate and reliable.

As to question b), using a radio link, it is possible to transmit the Hawk-Eye decision to an umpire equipped with a hand-held computer within two seconds. It could not decide whether the batsman got a touch, or if he was playing a shot. That is still up to the man in the white coat. What it could do is tell him with an impressive degree of accuracy whether the ball was going to hit the stumps.

"It's not taking away their jobs," says Hawkins, "it's just helping them in the same way as the third umpire does with run out decisions now." And not only does it help them in matches. The device is invaluable for training umpires as well, with the facility to give an umpire's eye view through 3D glasses. The action is stopped as the ball hits the pad and the umpire gives his decision. The ball then goes on and the quality of the decision can be judged.

Coaches too can benefit. They have a record of where bowlers pitch the ball, what they do with it and how much bounce they extract from the pitch. The information produced by the collected data is of obvious value when analysing performances of both batsmen and bowlers. During the Ashes series it was possible to see just what a consistent bowler Glenn McGrath is and how much turn Shane Warne gets, even from pitches not necessarily conducive to spin.

Hawkins believes this has advantages for spectators as well. "I think it brings out a whole new facet of cricket. It creates new talking points, such as how few balls actually go on to hit the stumps, which people probably didn't realise before." They might then wonder why McGrath in particular gets so many wickets when batsmen are dismissed by balls not directed at the stumps. Oh that batting was as simple as that!

There is one other question to be answered. The accuracy and reliability is proven to the satisfaction of most. The technology is available to convey the information to the umpires in the middle quickly. So how long before it becomes accepted as a genuine umpiring aid?

"It's my job to provide the technology and that's there now," says Hawkins "but it's not my job to make the decision as to whether it should be used by an umpire or not." A diplomatic answer, but perhaps he should have used the word "when" rather than "whether."

Look at www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk and you will see how the system works. The fact that it does work means that it can only be a matter of time before it becomes part of cricket. And shortly after that, it will be as unthinkable to be in a match without it as it would be to see a close horse race not decided by a photo finish. If the technology is available, why not use it?

© CricInfo Ltd.