NEW DELHI: Joe Root‘s LBW dismissal in the second innings of the fourth Test became a huge talking point after former England players raised questions on the accuracy of the Decision Review System (DRS).
Root was adjudged LBW off a Ravichandran Ashwin delivery during England’s second innings.

The incident took place in the 17th over of the innings when an Ashwin delivery hit Root straight on the pads. As the on-field umpire ruled it not out, the Indian team went upstairs and the decision was reversed, resulting in Root’s departure.

Paul Hawkins, the founder of the HawkEye technology employed for ball-tracking in the DRS in cricket, has joined in the raging debate and shrugged off all the suggestions around DRS.
He said that the correct decision was made by third umpire Joel Wilson in overturning on-field umpire Kumar Dharmasena’s call.
“So firstly, you measure the width of the stumps on each day of the Test. That then becomes the lines between what’s pitched in line and what’s not. It was a very close-on (Joe Root call),” Hawkinds told Simon Hughes in the ‘The Analyst’ podcast.

Hawkins clarified the distinction in the application of HawkEye technology in tennis and cricket. He mentioned that the response to Root’s LBW call provides an opportunity for them to enhance and refine the visual aspects of the ball-tracking system.
“In tennis, you will occasionally get zero mm in or zero mm out (in terms of ball pitching outside the line). But in tennis, it’s decided that it’s not out until it’s not zero mm, but it’s 1mm out. So in tennis, we shift the bounce mark just for the presentation perspective, so a zero mm in becomes a 1mm in to enable the viewers to see the mark.
“But that’s just a presentation thing, nothing different with the tracking or the answer. It just makes it clearer to the viewer.

“It would have been clearer on TV if the track hadn’t come off the ball, so you can see more clearly over the line, which happens automatically if the ball has pitched outside the leg stump.
“It must be 1mm more in than out (Joe Root case) because otherwise, we wouldn’t have said it’s pitched in line. But it is a very close one.
As per the laws, we gave the right answer. But we failed in the ability to not be the story and perhaps there’s a learning opportunity to improve our presentation and stuff to make those really close ones slightly clearer,” he added.