Front Foot No-Balls

[Flem274*]

***** would be the easiest employee to have personal development meetings with. just let him talk for an hour straight before sending him back to the trenches. easiest one to one ever.

 

[trundler]

This is the worst pwnage I've seen here since Starfighter wrecked Miyagi..

 

[cnerd123]

I can't do this. I have just enough low level knowledge to know that the tech is there, which is what you have been denying all along. This would need the guys with the knowledge who make live time filters that separate signals into parts they wish to observe. They are probably all busy creating filters that flag our conversations as potentially harmful for security agencies or working on special effects at Marvel studios at the moment.

So basically the tech is so raw and the problem so complex that the only people who could actually solve it are the handful of geniuses with better jobs to do? So basically it's unaffordable?

That means I'm correct FFS. I literally listed affordable as a criteria. Who the **** can afford to shell millions on the tech gurus to actually make this a reality? Just because the source code is free doesn't mean this is cheap, jfc.

The entire argument that this must be possible and the ICC is just blocking it out of political reasons or just CBF accepting an available solution is clearly false. It's clearly not possible to do this unless you take that term to the literal extent and go 'one genius with an IQ of 180 at NASA could probably whip this together'. It's clearly not affordable unless you can afford to hire said genius on retainer. The ICC didn't invest in any of the tech currently used until it was already built and stable and common enough to the point where it was cheap and accurate. It's ridiculous to assert they should in this one particular circumstance.

It's nice to know this technology is a lot closer to reality than I was aware of, clearly I was wrong, but also it clearly isn't ready enough. Like I said, all tech takes decades from being feasible to becoming useable for applications like this.

And I reject the notion entirely that something is possible and doesn't exist simply because the people who can do it just CBF. Humans don't work that way. I was clearly right. Exaggerations aside, this isn't possible otherwise someone would have built it. When only a select few people on earth are capable of making this a reality, it isn't actually possible. Affordability matters.

Another emphatic win for *****.

 

[Starfighter]

You're using words but the meaning behind them is rather hard to elucidate. Just stop.

 

[Burgey]

This is the worst pwnage I've seen here since Starfighter wrecked Miyagi..

^Owned

So basically the tech is so raw and the problem so complex that the only people who could actually solve it are the handful of geniuses with better jobs to do? So basically it's unaffordable?

That means I'm correct FFS. I literally listed affordable as a criteria. Who the **** can afford to shell millions on the tech gurus to actually make this a reality? Just because the source code is free doesn't mean this is cheap, jfc.

The entire argument that this must be possible and the ICC is just blocking it out of political reasons or just CBF accepting an available solution is clearly false. It's clearly not possible to do this unless you take that term to the literal extent and go 'one genius with an IQ of 180 at NASA could probably whip this together'. It's clearly not affordable unless you can afford to hire said genius on retainer. The ICC didn't invest in any of the tech currently used until it was already built and stable and common enough to the point where it was cheap and accurate. It's ridiculous to assert they should in this one particular circumstance.

It's nice to know this technology is a lot closer to reality than I was aware of, clearly I was wrong, but also it clearly isn't ready enough. Like I said, all tech takes decades from being feasible to becoming useable for applications like this.

And I reject the notion entirely that something is possible and doesn't exist simply because the people who can do it just CBF. Humans don't work that way. I was clearly right. Exaggerations aside, this isn't possible otherwise someone would have built it. When only a select few people on earth are capable of making this a reality, it isn't actually possible. Affordability matters.

Another emphatic win for *****.

^[Stream of meaningless drivel] self-owned

You're using words but the meaning behind them is rather hard to elucidate. Just stop.

^Boned

 

[Victor Ian]

No *****. I am saying I can't do it. Any qualified programmer could do it. But you want them to do it with no guarantee of a payment. Cricket is the only sport that needs this technology. If the ICC commissioned it any thousands of qualified programmers could do it and still feed their families while they worked on it. I'm betting you did the PowerPoint because you were being paid for it. I'm betting you have never made a PowerPoint for any business, taken it to someone and asked politely to be paid after the event.
This was not an emphatic win for *****. It was another pitiful struggle that sank him further into the quicksand.

 

[cpr]

All these folks having a dig at ***** because they contrarily opposed him and found themselves backing the right horse.

I was with ***** on this for quite a bit, in that imagining the tech was really difficult. Then VI explained a system countered this stance (you know rather than just saying 'lol ***** ur wrong m8' without any attempts to offer proof he was). Then ***** went to ****

Basically awful thread all round (bar Burgey).

Now can someone go back to page one and insert a post saying 'Isn't this exactly what Hawkeye was designed to do? Look at where things land and whether its completely over a line or just touching it (see Tennis)'

 

[vcs]

One of my students did his summer internship at a startup that was working on this technology. Apparently they were going to apply for a patent, get in touch with the BCCI and all (more than a year ago).

 

[Borges]

People (in academics) have been dabbling in developing technology for automatic detection of no balls for some years now.
For instance, https://phys.org/news/2015-05-device-balls.html (May 2015)

Relatively inexpensive technology, it would appear.
I suppose it has not been refined and applied to match situations because of lack of interest in it by the people who matter.

 

[Burgey]

cpr with a great contribution, as usual. Particularly his observations about the quality of the contributors to the thread. Excellent stuff.

 

[Burgey]

Out of interest, does anyone have an opinion on whether the technology already exists to rule on front foot no balls?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think there's been enough ownage and bonage in this thread already Burgey, now you're just getting greedy

 

[cpr]

Until we have automated technology that calls Burgey whenever he steps over the line, I'm afraid he's gonna keep chucking them down

 

[rodk]

Someone asked at the start of the thread about using a sensor to sort out whether bowlers are guilty of foot faults. Ironically, the answer lies in the sport of ten pin bowling; there is a laser sensor in the alley that goes off if the bowler's foot crosses the line, which nullifies the shot entirely. You can see it in the black area to the left of the lane. That tech could just as easily be used to decide when a bowler's foot has not crossed the line or has gone completely over it.

 

[Burgey]

***** b. Rodk 0(1)

 

[cpr]

How will it do it though? In 10 pin the foot cant cross the line at all, so any break in the sensor is an auto foul.

In cricket, the foot can cross the line, just not all of the foot, so a break in the sensor isn't a foul. Neither is no break, because the ball could be bowled with the entire foot behind the line. So in effect you're talking a multitude of sensors to map the area to see where the foot falls, becoming more expensive and probably too cumbersome to have built in around the stumps

 

[rodk]

How will it do it though? In 10 pin the foot cant cross the line at all, so any break in the sensor is an auto foul.

In cricket, the foot can cross the line, just not all of the foot, so a break in the sensor isn't a foul. Neither is no break, because the ball could be bowled with the entire foot behind the line. So in effect you're talking a multitude of sensors to map the area to see where the foot falls, becoming more expensive and probably too cumbersome to have built in around the stumps

I'm thinking that if the sensor goes off, then it is a valid bowl. I get it that it won't go off if the bowler is behind the line just as much as if he steps completely over it, but figuring out if he is behind it or in front of it should not be too complicated even if you are an umpire.

 

[TheJediBrah]

should not be too complicated even if you are an umpire.

lol yeah even those idiots should be smart enough to figure that out

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ser Rodrik strikes...

 

[marc71178]

Until we have automated technology that calls Burgey whenever he steps over the line, I'm afraid he's gonna keep chucking them down

You forget that as an Aussie, Burgey can move the line to suit his agenda.