You can't trust Hawkeye!!!! At the Aussie open tennis in '07 a challenge on a line call was made and the pictured showed a clear gap between ball and line, yet the graphic came up as "In" The umpire didn't know whether the picture or the graphic was correct so went with his gut instinct. I've laughed at Hawkeye since - and they use this technology in grand slam tournaments FFS!. All these replays that show potential line of the ball and height etc are rubbish. What if Flynn was on 2 at the time and his career was on the line? - let alone on 95 and close to his maiden test 100! The decision looked right in the 17 replays with a simulated view, but to the naked eye first time around in real time? Benefit of the doubt, not out. How they could determine the ball was in line when half the ball looked outside the shaded area was confusing. Is there any rule on how much of the ball needs to be in line? Just half of it perhaps? Only Doull's voice perked up with excitement. My thought was "what the f**k is this doing in test cricket?" Keep it to the giggle game that is Twenty20
I'm assuming your yet to discover that they don't use hawkeye (or any other predictive path program) for referrals? The look at where the ball pitched and where (and whether pad/bat/bell, etc) the batsman was hit.
And fyi - any partof the ball must be in line with the stumps... hence the previous comments about Dan, etc... will open up a whole new world as the doubt is being removed.
Sorry, but if you believe a piece of shaded pitch with a camera placed 100 metres back that could be 1 centremetre off the line of middle stump is going to tell you that a quarter of the ball pitched in line with the off stump, then you've been fooled terribly!!