My name is Mike Selvey and I was a Hawk-Eye denier. Ever since the introduction of the technology to international cricket, my scepticism of its efficacy knew no bounds. It was, I rationalised, a piece of television entertainment, designed to enhance the watching experience, but one lent by commentators and given definitive powers it did not possess because of the inherent margin of error. So while I could not understand India’s decision to throw the baby out with the bathwater in not recognising the Decision Review System, I did not believe in the accuracy of the predictive element, and empathised with them on this.

Then I had a conversation with my old South African bowling mate Vince van der Bijl, who is in charge of all things to do with umpires and match referees at the ICC. I was wrong, he argued vehemently; Hawk-Eye is actually extremely accurate and while the protocols under which it is used might not be all they could be – placing, in my view, too much emphasis on protecting the umpires’ integrity and not enough on getting correct decisions – the technology itself is not at fault. I should see for myself, he said. So a couple of months ago I went down to Sony Europe, at Basingstoke, to meet Steve Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations, who Vince was sure would be able to demonstrate the capability of the technology to my satisfaction. It was fascinating and changed my opinion totally to the extent now that, as far as I am concerned, the only arguments should be about how, not if, it is used.

The acid test for me was to see how Hawk-Eye’s predictive tracking would marry up to a delivery that had gone straight through to the wicketkeeper. Would there be a significant differential in the path? Simple, said Steve. Then he showed me footage of a batsman allowing a delivery to pass by outside off stump. The same delivery was then shown from square leg, with the tracking superimposed, and the outcome, given my reticence, was staggering.

The empirical evidence, shown in tabulated form, said that from a distance of seven metres – around a good length for a pace bowler – to the stumps, the accuracy of prediction was within one millimetre, and at a virtual point of impact on the pad, less than that.

The keys to it, Steve and Ed Hawke – who handles the cricket side of things – explained are the number of cameras used and their speed. The equipment they have now has 10 times the accuracy of the early versions, so my scepticism was not entirely misplaced. It was all totally convincing.

How, then, to ensure it is used to best effect. The idea of implementing it just for the so-called “howler” is surely ridiculous. At what point does it not become one, and who decides? Will there be a “howler referee” and would a captain or batsman have a right to refer to him for a decision on what or was not deemed one if they didn’t agree? There is sense in maintaining an element of “umpire’s call” or we may as well not have on-field umpires at all, but the margin of error offered them has to be reduced significantly.

India’s suggestion that the referral should be taken out of the hands of the players and placed with the third umpire has some merit, in which case the third umpire position almost takes precedence and would require specialist interpretive training, particularly where non-automated systems are applied (Hawk-Eye is automated and no third umpire involved). It should also be operated by the ICC independently of television, and to the same standard globally. And if there are to be reviews by players and it goes against them, abandon the idea that they lose one where an umpire’s call is involved.

I was shown one further thing. A split screen showed an empty indoor net and two deliveries from a leg-spinner. Each pitched and turned from leg to off, and the picture was then frozen at the point of what would have been impact with a pad in a neutral position. One was striking at about half-stump height, the other maybe two-thirds high. What did I think happened next ?

The first, I suggested, would probably be deemed hitting near the top of the stumps and the second clearing, but I suspected that they were in fact the same delivery filmed from a different height. This was indeed the case, and it showed how wrong we can be when we look incredulous when a ball we think is clearly going to hit is shown to be clearing them by a distance: both were hitting. The perspective is entirely contingent on the height of the camera behind the arm, the lower the camera the better. An ideal one would be in the top of the middle stump at either end.

This made me think. There was a time, years ago now, when some umpires such as Harry Baldwin (try and look at Bumble’s comedy routine) and Frank Chester, crouched low, almost to bail height, which might seem hilarious but makes absolute sense in maximising judgment of height (look at how a baseball referee crouches to do much the same job). Why do umpires no longer do this? Would not Bruce Oxenford have given himself more chance of getting right the erroneous lbw decision he made against Murali Vijay in India’s first innings at Trent Bridge had he seen it from a better perspective? And in this regard, would short people not make better umpires than tall ones?