This isn't on the cricinfo website yet, I don't think, but this morning on "Wide World of Sports" on C9, Mark Taylor announced that Hawk Eye will be trialed. Players will be able to challenge the decision of the umpire for LBWs. The 3rd Umpire will then be able to see the hawk eye replay of the ball, but will only see it until it hits the batsman, he won't see the predicted path that we see on television. The 3rd umpire then makes a decision and advises the on-field umpires of his decision, and then the on-field umpires choose whether to go with or against the 3rd umpire's decision. The players have the challenge the decision within 8 seconds of the on-field umpire's initial decision, to go to the 3rd umpire. 

Its an interesting one. Hopefully they trial it extensivly, probably in the Champions Trophy or some other pointless competition. And each team only allowed 3 unsuccessful challenges per innings, such as in tennis.

This could work but it would have to be limited to a certain number of challenges as Jimmy says. 

I dont know if this will work. Most times players will have no idea if they are LBW or not. There is a high chance that LBW can be wrong so the players will always appeal and this will only cause time delay.

how will this help if the batsman gets an inside edge? i think thats the only time the batsman knows hes not out.

Nothing is perfect but I think that having the slow motion replay to watch will at least give the 3rd umpire the chance to get the correct decision.

The fielding side appeal, not the batsman, I'd think.

But still the 3rd umpire cant make the decision. The umpire on the field has to make the decision. I dont understand the reason for this. It will only cause difficulties and communication will cause delays. They should let the third umpire make the decision.

The third umpire advises the on field umpires. The on-field umpires might be leaning towards that it wasn't going to hit and the 3rd umpire might be leaning neither way. You don't always see the whole situation on hawk eye. I mean it's hard to explain, it's not really he on-field umpires making the decision, they will make the decision together, they would discuss it, and it's just the on-field umpire putting his finger up rather than the scoreboard saying "OUT"

Thats why I am saying its more confusing. Firstly they are only making half use of hawkeye but showing it only till it hits the batsman. Then they are not giving full power to the third umpire. The on field umpire cant see the replay so how can he decide against the third umpire.

Hmmm......I am not sure but maybe it was used on trial basis (Not the Hawk-eye)in one of the Champions trophy.
Where the "on-field Umpire" refer the LBW decision to the "Third Umpire".
Maybe the Champions Trophy was held in Sri Lanka of which India & Sri Lanka were joint holders in the finals.

Allowing players to appeal decisions is a cop out - if we started the game of cricket today no-one would consider not using technology to help with all decisions.   There's always resistance to change but those in charge need to show leadership to push the use of technology through - too many results are massively important both in terms of money and status now to leave it to fluke.   Even if you believe it does even out over time, it rarely does in the course of 1 match, and that's what's important.

Why don't both on field umpires have a small laptop like screen to view all camera angles, snicko, Hawk-Eye etc so that they can use that if they need to? - they would decide which replays they wanted to see to help them.   It seems the obvious way to go for me....the only thing to be aware of is that players may want to crowd around the umpire to see the replays, so a regulation would need to be put in place to cover that.

No more 3rd umpire so financial savings for the ICC, on-field umpires remain in control and respected, players get correct decisions, and it's all easily put in place.   Anyone agree?

i think its wrong, and if they do it then the batsmen should be able to appeal for a decision he feels was not out!

Because the predicted path is exactly that, predicted, it isn't accurate enough to use. It may spin more or less than expected, move off the seam, hit a crack or bounce less or more than the bowler's normal balls.

Yes, it's only a predicted path Jonesy, but you can therefore only give decisions if the ball is hitting the inside of leg stump for example, where as if it's clipping the outside it would be given not out.   The tests the ICC are doing soon should determine the level of accuracy of Hawk-Eye so that the right regulations are put in place so that you could be sure the ball was hitting even accounting for some inaccuracy in the technology.   As always the benefit of doubt would go to the batsman.   The other thing to remember is that even if there is the occassional wrong decision based on technology, it will be an improvement on umpires without any help as now.

Everyone in cricket needs to think about how best we can help umpires make decisions now, not worry about the fact that we need to change ways of making decisions in the past.

Positive change is good - indecision because of aversion to change is bad.