Front Foot No-Balls

[Burgey]

No. You are the one who's been rude and disrespectful throughout this discussion. As I said earlier (and yes there are some assumptions in here), it would require means beyond any club and there is no economical reason for someone to invest the time and money in it if there's no likelihood that it will be implemented and hence get a return on the investment. People don't just throw money away. This wouldn't be one of those things that someone is just going to invest the research into without a guarantee and hope that someone adopts it IMO. I am 95% sure that if ICC decided to put serious effort and funds into automated front-foot no-ball technology then it would happen pretty quickly.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it, and you haven't given any reason for me to think that I am. You've been making assurances with no basis.



M8 I never assumed anything. You forced that upon me as you have this whole debate. Honestly ***** you are going full r****d this thread and before calling me "dumb lazy and ignorant" maybe take a look at yourself.

Tbh the hypocrisy in most of your posts here has been baffling. You've given no evidence or even reason for anyone to believe your point of view, then keep deriding the opposing point of view for lack of evidence. My god.

Yeah!

Been that way since December 2009 ffs

 

[Burgey]

And fair play if it makes you happy.

 

[cnerd123]

We literally have professional scientists and engineers brainstorming in this thread about how to automate front foot no balls and listing all the difficulties with it and why it's probably not feasible and yet 'Mr Protractor' TJB continues to insist there is a way to do it just no desire or money involved


FFS I give up.

And yes I've been rude and disrespectful, this whole thing has just made me really annoyed. I'll drop it now.

 

[TheJediBrah]

We literally have professional scientists and engineers brainstorming in this thread about how to automate front foot no balls and listing all the difficulties with it and why it's probably not feasible and yet 'Mr Protractor' TJB continues to insist there is a way to do it just no desire or money involved


FFS I give up.

And yes I've been rude and disrespectful, this whole thing has just made me really annoyed. I'll drop it now.

tbh I think you got yourself annoyed because you expected an argument and then projected your expectations onto what was responded to you. I still have no idea what your actual point has been this whole time or why you seem so insistent that the "technology doesn't exist" rather than just accept that without appropriate funding and motivation, maybe no one has been sufficient work into it at this stage?

 

[Burgey]

I can understand your frustration, *****. If you were any good as an umpire, you'd have no trouble picking up these front foot no balls yourself. It's not unreasonable that your inability to properly do something which you hold so dear would be a cause of great angst. I hope you're ok.

Hugs xx

 

[cnerd123]

You joke but I actually really hate calling front foot no balls and would love if it could be automated. Shame the technology doesn't exist and never will.

 

[Burgey]

Well, if you aren’t up to it then move on and let someone else do it

 

[Daemon]

***** u genuinely believe its not possible? We put a man on the moon 50 years ago. Which fake chinese website did u buy ur engineering degree from bro?

 

[andmark]

You joke but I actually really hate calling front foot no balls and would love if it could be automated. Shame the technology doesn't exist and never will.

I do wonder how umpires manage to see the no-ball situation, along with (in the case of LBWs) where the ball pitched, hit the pad, bat or both and judge if it would have hit the stumps or if a batsman has got an edge. It must be a nightmare.

 

[Adders]

How tough can it be if ***** can get a gig?

I'm amazed this is such a debate tbh and especially the line of thinking that it's unfair on the bowlers that they aren't getting called until they take a wicket. I've got zero sympathy for them......this should be worked out in the nets and not in a test match. And anyone that's watched a net session will tell you they dgaf where their front foot is landing.

Responsibility for this is with the bowlers and coaching staff and not the umpires imo.

 

[TNT]

Just accept the umpires decision, thats what used to make cricket different from other sports, cricket players would accept the umpires decision. You will never get perfection and no matter how much technology gets thrown at the game there will always be something that is not perfect. Eventually each decision the umpire makes will have to have a full trial with jury.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How tough can it be if ***** can get a gig?

I'm amazed this is such a debate tbh and especially the line of thinking that it's unfair on the bowlers that they aren't getting called until they take a wicket. I've got zero sympathy for them......this should be worked out in the nets and not in a test match. And anyone that's watched a net session will tell you they dgaf where their front foot is landing.

Responsibility for this is with the bowlers and coaching staff and not the umpires imo.

It's still technically unfair on the batting side to be facing who knows how many no-balls all innings. Umpire has to take some responsibility

 

[Adders]

It's still technically unfair on the batting side to be facing who knows how many no-balls all innings. Umpire has to take some responsibility

Yeah, but the runs they miss out on is probably well compensated by the fact the bowler doesn't get pinged till he gets a wicket.....I dunno? I feel like the fielding side is far more dissadvantaged by the current situation and since it's their problem I can't really see what the big deal is?

Personally I'd rather the ump be focused on what's happening the other end.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, but the runs they miss out on is probably well compensated by the fact the bowler doesn't get pinged till he gets a wicket.....I dunno? I feel like the fielding side is far more dissadvantaged by the current situation and since it's their problem I can't really see what the big deal is?

Personally I'd rather the ump be focused on what's happening the other end.

That's what I figure, but we shouldn't be relying on the disadvantages of each side balancing out. We should be trying to make the correct calls all the time.

 

[Victor Ian]

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.

OK. Here is the system outline. I'm stepping in as one of TJB's minions.

1) You have a stump camera that is wide angle and watches the crease from a low vantage point - probably installed low in the stump. The current Stump cam, might actually be sufficient with an adjustment to capture the crease area in field of view
A software algorithm determines the boundaries of the crease visually. This is simply mapping areas by colour and can dyamically change as the crease loses altitude from bowlers feet pounding it lower and lower.
Likewise, the software determines when each foot fall lands on the ground. This can be done by mapping distortion in the soul of the foot, or even 3d mapping. These are shape recognition algorithms that exist and happen in an instant.

2) Another camera is watching the bowler from side on. For simplicity and economy, this might as well be the cameras that watch for run outs. It determines when the ball left the hand.

3) For each ball, from stump cam, software determines when the bowler's foot lands and whether the heal lifted - it will observe the entirety of the crease boundary area beneath the foot if it lifted or landed over the line.
-condition a - foot never reaches line - end of program
-condition b - foot lands on line - compare with ball release video
-condition c - foot lands completely over line - compare with ball release video to determine if ball released before foot lands (ie. back foot release)

4) For each ball software determines when the ball left the hand from the side on camera

5) Compare 3 & 4

6) Beep or Don't Beep.


It all comes down to how much resolution the camera has. Current software can find and mark out lines of thickness in pictures - that is easy. Current software can determine when those lines stop being fully visible (foot on the line).
This system relies on a clearly painted crease. Being visual it can account for the ground shape changing - as ground gets pounded in. It can adjust for batsman scratching out portions of the crease by filling in missing gaps in the line.
The lower the camera is placed, the more accurate it can be in determining if the heel has lifted. However, currently the standard is to judge this from about 5 to 6 feet high (umps eyes). Anything below this should be acceptable.

The software part is not that difficult. That is what software engineers do. Sure, it will take a few days observing a bowler to iron out all the false hits with a number of recognition states.

A) Works regardless if a bowler is bowling over or around the wicket, and regardless of where the batsman stands and how he moves - solved
B) Can identify the moment a front foot lands, and doesn't confuse that with the bowler's backfoot or follow through. - solved
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) - solved
D) Doesn't interrupt the game (get in the way of bowlers, batsmen, fielders) - solved
E) Will not break or get damaged over the process of a game, or during bad weather - solved
F) Is accurate and affordable - solved
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) - solved

 

[Burgey]

Seems to me that VI has solved this in an instant, and basically rendered all *****'s blustering superfluous, if it wasn't already.

 

[Adders]

A Brah minion????? Please I really couldn't handle it if TJB puts together a TJBT.

Burgey if this happens I will be pointing the finger at you.

 

[jimmy101]

Then again, JediBrah might actually pay his employees. Would be a nice change of pace.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Send your resume through VI and I'll see what we have available

 

[cnerd123]

VI's thing actually does need a form of manual control to tell the software when the bowler is running in vs when a fielder is just walking through the crease.

The side on camera watching bowlers is often blocked by fielders and non striking batsmen.

It's close tho, that's basically how I envisioned cameras on umpire hats would work