Testing the accuracy of Hawk-Eye

It appears that the ICC have decided to test the accuracy of Hawk-Eye in May but somehow doubts still remain as to whether or not to use Hawk-Eye for predicting where the ball would have gone. What if it isn't shown to be 100% accurate? That's easy isn't it....just use it to give decisions to the appropriate level of accuracy. If you believe Hawk-Eye to be accurate to the width of a stump (and this accuracy level is what needs to be tested and scientifically proven), then the decision is only out if Hawk-Eye suggests the ball was hitting the outside stump full on - any suggesting that the ball would have just clipped the stumps makes the decision not out.

What is in no doubt is the accuracy of Hawk-Eye to show accurately where the ball bounced prior to hitting the batsman. Pitched outside leg? That type of wrong decision could be instantly made a relic of the past and we'll laugh at the rediculousness of the fact that players had to put up with wrong decisions that changed the results of matches for years, before finally technology was used to help.

It all seems so simple to me - I'm totally confused as to why the cricketing world are being so pondorous. Is there any other event or business that, when offered the chance to take a significant step forward, would back away from that opportunity? The answer is that there will always be those that resist change, but it is up to the those in the senior positions to drive through change anyway, and Hawk-Eye is just one of many required. That is what top managers are paid to do isn't it? If they do nothing until there is a huge groundswell of opinion emploring them to make a change, that's not leadership - that's administration - and their pay should reflect their lack of leadership and foresight.