Front Foot No-Balls

[TheJediBrah]

@ ***** I'm starting to think that you have a different definition of "technology doesn't exist" than the rest of us and that's where the confusion is arising. If your interpretation of that is "no one has a working and tested system currently available for use" then yes, obviously "the technology doesn't exist". But I don't think that's the understanding most people would have, and nor is it particularly relevant to the discussion of whether it's a viable option for the future.

If we as a human race never considered trying to use or make anything that didn't already exist ready-to-use then we'd still be living in caves.

 

[cpr]

If they can catch oversteppers in Olympic long jump with technology I see no reason why it can't be used in cricket

But the technology they use for the long jump is an umpire watching where the foot lands (with slow mo replays for TV audiences only). The only difference is the line in long jump has a easily damaged mould on it to show where the foot hit

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I suspect that the problem with the technology is limiting it to the crease line for when the bowler is bowling the ball. (This would also be perfect for judging close run outs.) I think that the technology used at the olympics for the long/triple jumps is probably some sort of pressure plate you touch. Difficult to put that into a pitch. Probably some sort of 'laser' technology that could be switched on and off but you could not be sending that across a field and setting that technology up just at the wicket would be difficult. The components to do something are there in all likelihood, it is probably the will and cost to actually engineer it.

I think that the umpires should be calling big no-balls, anything where the foot is close to touching the line is difficult. Particularly with the law that the foot can still be in the air. I think that the TV/3rd umpire should be helping the on field umpires by speaking to them when they start consistently missing no balls even close ones; this way the umpire can speak to the bowler and also decide whether to rather than give the bowler benefit of doubt start calling the close ones. The bowler would probably get back behind the line then.

I wonder if it would just be easier to say that the foot should be behind the line (then things like the pressure plate could work!)

I'm fairly sure they just use plasticine in long jump. The video display is something the TV producers add on (so 0.1 mm is the minimum for a good jump even if their video camera suggests it was foul), and it doesn't affect the official decision.

(Side note: the big problem in long jump is measuring the landing. It happens way too often that officials just pick out the wrong mark)

 

[mr_mister]

Oh okay. Maybe plonk a third umpire a metre square of the wicket at the bowlers end to inspect oversteppers

 

[StephenZA]

I'm fairly sure they just use plasticine in long jump. The video display is something the TV producers add on (so 0.1 mm is the minimum for a good jump even if their video camera suggests it was foul), and it doesn't affect the official decision.

(Side note: the big problem in long jump is measuring the landing. It happens way too often that officials just pick out the wrong mark)

I thought that it was also upgraded that the umpire has a beep that goes off in his ear? But no real idea.

 

[cnerd123]

@ ***** I'm starting to think that you have a different definition of "technology doesn't exist" than the rest of us and that's where the confusion is arising. If your interpretation of that is "no one has a working and tested system currently available for use" then yes, obviously "the technology doesn't exist". But I don't think that's the understanding most people would have, and nor is it particularly relevant to the discussion of whether it's a viable option for the future.

If we as a human race never considered trying to use or make anything that didn't already exist ready-to-use then we'd still be living in caves.

There isn't actually any technology available that can be effectively put towards solving this issue.

Just stop to think about what it is this technology would entail before you keep posting. You need a system that:

A) Works regardless if a bowler is bowling over or around the wicket, and regardless of where the batsman stands and how he moves
B) Can identify the moment a front foot lands, and doesn't confuse that with the bowler's backfoot or follow through.
C) Isn't a permanent fixture in the ground (because not all grounds would pay to install/maintain it, and if it cannot be used in every single game of a series/tournament, it's unlikely to be used at all)
D) Doesn't interrupt the game (get in the way of bowlers, batsmen, fielders)
E) Will not break or get damaged over the process of a game, or during bad weather
F) Is accurate and affordable
G) Doesn't require an additional human being present at the ground to operate (you may as well just have a guy staring at the crease whole game via a pair of binoculars calling no-balls instead)

Now, go and actually have a think about what human technology is currently capable of. Look at how other sports tackle similar issues, and see if they are adaptable to cricket. Take the time to actually think this through instead of repeatedly insisting that the technology exists and just no one cbf to do anything, and then then let me know if you think current technology actually allows for a solution to this issue.

Or, y'know, just continue to hold up a protractor to your TV and question why we can land a man on the moon but can't figure out such simple problems.

 

[trundler]

Just get, like a sensor or one of those motion detector things and fix it there.

 

[cnerd123]

Just get, like a sensor or one of those motion detector things and fix it there.

i don't even know if you're being sincere or just trying to wind me up now

 

[mr_mister]

You'll never live down protractorgate Jedi

 

[trundler]

i don't even know if you're being sincere or just trying to wind me up now

I mean, they have them everywhere. You just have to put it together. How hard can it be?

 

[Gnske]

Imagine doing all aspects of your job competently for just one day out of the many days you do it.

 

[StephenZA]

I mean, they have them everywhere. You just have to put it together. How hard can it be?

Said the architect to the engineers....

 

[trundler]

"Any bogan with a protractor is not an engineer"

- CW proverb

 

[the big bambino]

Yea okay so basically man can get to the moon but why haven't they figured out automated front foot no-ball tech. Valuable input to the discussion. We've all learnt so much from that.

One small step for man ... NO BALL!.

 

[Starfighter]

One small step for man ... NO BALL!.

Clearly need to make the step smaller, or further back.

 

[cnerd123]

So far the best technical solution I can come up with is a small camera mounted on the umpires hat pointed at the crease at either end with a very clever bit of programming and a light/sound system installed. It will capture no balls and signal to the players and umpires as they happen.

I imagine the code would be nightmare to write and debug tho.

 

[StephenZA]

So far the best technical solution I can come up with is a small camera mounted on the umpires hat pointed at the crease at either end with a very clever bit of programming and a light/sound system installed. It will capture no balls and signal to the players and umpires as they happen.

I imagine the code would be nightmare to write and debug tho.

Now we trying to get the umpire to stay so still as to almost not be breathing? Nevermind standing in exactly the same spot every time?

Just make sure the bowlers foot lands behind the crease in its entirety. And as an immediate solution use the 3rd/TV umpire to guide the on field umpire. Let's not try to spend the next ten years speculatively creating a complicated engineering solution for what is a relatively straightforward fix, as fun as that is.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't think requiring the foot entirely behind the line actually fixes the issue tbh. You'll still get no balls not called.

 

[Starfighter]

Just make sure the bowlers foot lands behind the crease in its entirety

That just makes the bowler bowl from a longer distance without really fixing the problem. Besides, what if the front foot slides? How is the on-field umpire supposed to deal with that, it's a rapid movement.

Actually, there's a more fundamental problem. The current rule means is dictated by the position of the back of the foot which is immediately visible to the standing umpire. Your proposed rule is dictated by the position of the front of the foot, which is concealed behind the leg. All of a sudden you've made it impossible for the standing umpire to make a call, and there will be no difference in how the third umpire might make a call compared to the previous rule except for the foot position.

In effect you've made the problem worse.

 

[StephenZA]

I suppose that the angle of the foot could make it difficult to see the front of the foot with regards to the line. What I`m trying to currently avoid is allowing the cutting of the line in any form, such that the distinction becomes clear. At the moment trying to see if a foot landed behind the line in close calls, particularly when you consider that the back of the foot is raised. Quite often you see umpires (and bowlers) mark in front of the crease to estimate how far the foot has landed beyond the line for indication of no balls.