Front Foot No-Balls

[Top_Cat]

Everyone knows where the line is.

 

[trundler]

Everything ***** has said is basically 'if it could be done they'd have done it'. It's just lazy and incompetent and starting to get on my nerves. Come back when you have something meaningful to say otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time. It's just lazy tbh.

 

[Burgey]

More ownage than an owners convention in Ownsville, Owntario.

 

[mr_mister]

Must say you looked a little silly here *****

Maybe have a spell

 

[cnerd123]

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/no-...dia-second-test-finch-sharma-voges/2018-12-13

 

[cnerd123]

TLDR: The ICC was aware of the issue for years, carried out trials of some technology, found it to be costly and not that much more effictive than the status quo, decide to stick with on field umpires for now and just get harsher on grading their performances

 

[Daemon]

so the technology existed and it just needed a couple of cameras?

 

[Flem274*]

they should get rid of front foot no balls on todays evidence. in both tests they're only checking when a wicket is taken. the umpires cbf

 

[Burgey]

so the technology existed and it just needed a couple of cameras?

Owned. And boned.

 

[cnerd123]

so the technology existed and it just needed a couple of cameras?

It's not affordable, jfc you guys.

I'll cop that I often used the word 'Possible' poorly when I really should have used 'Feasible' (and that I am way behind in my knowledge of image tracking tech), but the main point that I was hammering away is that the it's not really a feasible idea, and if it was, the ICC would be open to adopting it.

Even the most rudimentary, basic solution of a camera focused at the crease with a guy watching has been found to be not worth the investment, as per the ICC Cost Benefit Analysis. There is no way any complex solution involving software design would be any cheaper, and that's assuming the ICC even had a budget to invest in R&D for this sort of stuff, which usually they do not. Snicko, Hotspot, Hawkeye, were all solutions developed by other people that the ICC then went and adopted once it's became affordable and reliable (actually probably a few years after that point had been reached tbh)

Not only that, but I was really annoyed by people suggesting the ICC were just sitting around not looking for a solution to this problem. Clearly they're wrong. The ICC has been working on it for years. Which proves what I've been saying - if there was a feasible solution available, they would have atleast trialed it. The implication that they're lazy, or are living under a rock unaware of stuff that any cricket fan worth his salt is, or that there is some attempt to protect Kumar Dharmasena's job, is just downright insulting.

And that brings me back to why this attitude towards the ICC really annoys me. Because, from everyone I've talked to who has actually worked with the ICC, it is full of hard working, passionate, cricket-loving people. They're understaffed, under funded, and are not the same as the corrupt/incompetent leaders of cricket boards that make the bad decisions that we all hate. The ICC are cricket nerds like all of us here, and if we've thought of something, I am very certain that not only have they thought of it, but they've put hours of work into making it happen - because that's their job. Again, from everything I've heard, they work long hours under immense stress with little pay, and much like umpires, are on a hiding for nothing from armchair cricket enthusiasts who think they know better how to run a sport because they post on a forum a lot (and yes this includes me as well).

This is why I argue this so much. That and because I genuinely believe in human ingenuity to the point where I feel if something was possible, someone would make it happen. Clearly people here disagree with me, and that's fine. I'll drop that angle. But I will stand firm that if a feasible solution existed, the ICC will adopt it. I do believe the people that work the ICC are good at their job, because from all accounts that I've heard, they absolutely are. The people who sit at the head of the ICC...that's not something I'm fit to comment on.

I think everyone who was insisting that the ICC should do something about no-balls not being called should now be happy to hear this. The ICC have actually explored a solution (to the point of trialing it at a Test series), and have decided to crack down harder on umpires who don't call no-balls. This shows they care about the issues we care about, and that they're open to solutions. Maybe in 5-10-15 years we'll actually get automated no-balls (or something similar) in place. Because the ICC cares about cricket, cares about its fans, and wants to do good for the sport.

end rant.

 

[Daemon]

Don't care and wasn't involved in the ICC part of the debate, but don't make us multi quote the embarrassing arguments you put up against how it would be so incredibly impossible to check for no-balls using technology.

Yes it was not cost effective, but apparently not expensive enough for the technology to have been researched and developed. The issue is with implementation.

 

[trundler]

Every ***** essay can be countered by one straightforward point which he conveniently sidesteps every time.

Don't care and wasn't involved in the ICC part of the debate, but don't make us multi quote the embarrassing arguments you put up against how it would be so incredibly impossible to check for no-balls using technology.

Yes it was not cost effective, but apparently not expensive enough for the technology to have been researched and developed. The issue is with implementation.

And boom

 

[cnerd123]

Don't care and wasn't involved in the ICC part of the debate, but don't make us multi quote the embarrassing arguments you put up against how it would be so incredibly impossible to check for no-balls using technology.

Yes it was not cost effective, but apparently not expensive enough for the technology to have been researched and developed. The issue is with implementation.

It's not like anyone arguing this technology was absolutely possible knew anything about it until Victor Ian showed up, so quote that all you want. People claiming that something that doesn't actually exist must be possible without any supporting evidence is objectively worse than claiming that the reason it doesn't exist is because it's not possible. Imperfect as my knowledge may be, it's still better than people making the opposite argument with literally no thought or knowledge behind it. Plus I stand by the 'If it's possible it must exist' line of reasoning, and think it's more valid that the man on the moon argument that others were presenting, so if you disagree with that I don't really care.

What the ICC did was relatively low cost - just a camera focused at the crease and an extra match official. There was no R&D involved. If this is deemed unaffordable to adopt as a solution going ahead, then any other high-tech method is surely out of the discussion. Atleast for now.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Don't care and wasn't involved in the ICC part of the debate, but don't make us multi quote the embarrassing arguments you put up against how it would be so incredibly impossible to check for no-balls using technology.

Yes it was not cost effective, but apparently not expensive enough for the technology to have been researched and developed. The issue is with implementation.

m8 you didn't just make an erroneous claim about the availability of the technology. You did it repeatedly and mocked and abused everyone who disagreed with your erroneous claim.

 

[trundler]

It's not like anyone arguing this technology was absolutely possible knew anything about it until Victor Ian showed up, so quote that all you want. People claiming that something that doesn't actually exist must be possible without any supporting evidence is objectively worse than claiming that the reason it doesn't exist is because it's not possible. Imperfect as my knowledge may be, it's still better than people making the opposite argument with literally no thought or knowledge behind it. Plus I stand by the 'If it's possible it must exist' line of reasoning, and think it's more valid that the man on the moon argument that others were presenting, so if you disagree with that I don't really care.

What the ICC did was relatively low cost - just a camera focused at the crease and an extra match official. There was no R&D involved. If this is deemed unaffordable to adopt as a solution going ahead, then any other high-tech method is surely out of the discussion. Atleast for now.

 

[cnerd123]

m8 you didn't just make an erroneous claim about the availability of the technology. You did it repeatedly and mocked and abused everyone who disagreed with your erroneous claim.

It was mostly you, but I do apologize to anyone else who got caught in the spray. That was uncalled for and I regret it. I should have worked harder at focusing it entirely on you and you alone. You deserved it.

 

[trundler]

It was mostly you, but I do apologize to anyone else who got caught in the spray. That was uncalled for and I regret it. I should have worked harder at focusing it entirely on you and you alone. You deserved it.

 

[Daemon]

People claiming that something that doesn't actually exist must be possible without any supporting evidence is objectively worse than claiming that the reason it doesn't exist is because it's not possible.

Ah. So I presume you believe the onus is on atheists to prove God doesn't exist?

edit: actually this is a poor analogy. no emphatic win for daemon this time.

 

[Burgey]

Still owned and boned ***** tbh, and that's all that matters in this thread.

 

[Spikey]

bump