• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why can't they use slow motion cameras for run outs.

rlance

Cricket Spectator
Perhaps they can use thermal imaging cameras for runouts too? Heat transfer from grounding the bat and when the gloves touch. There's a lot of places a camera *could* be used.
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
Have you seen those ultra motion things! Holy, by the time they get to the part where he dislodges the bails, it'll be tea time.
 

Stumped

Banned
they do only have one as they cost a trillion, if they transfer the one they have to run outs we will loose the great images we have, the positioning of it at the moment is convienient as it shows great pictures and can also be sued to determine whether the ball the the bat etc, leave it where it is unless ur gonna pay a trillion for another
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Perhaps they can use thermal imaging cameras for runouts too? Heat transfer from grounding the bat and when the gloves touch. There's a lot of places a camera *could* be used.
How is that in any way helpful to the conversation?
 

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
I suppose sliding the bat would leave a trail of heat on the pitch. At the exact point that you see some line behind the crease then you can look at if the bails have been removed. Would help determine if the bat is in the air (or foot). Still an awful lot of effort for very little reward. Slow motion cameras would be very conclusive however.
 

rlance

Cricket Spectator
How is that in any way helpful to the conversation?
Sorry, I was just thinking about this at the same time I opened this thread :)

In the context of more technology creeping into the game - as the cost of introducing these new things decreases perhaps we'll see more ultra high frame and thermal/other imaging. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a whole other debate.

Agree with the OP.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Fair enough - but Bob Bamber is far from the first person to start a thread and receive sarcastic responses...
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
they do only have one as they cost a trillion, if they transfer the one they have to run outs we will loose the great images we have, the positioning of it at the moment is convienient as it shows great pictures and can also be sued to determine whether the ball the the bat etc, leave it where it is unless ur gonna pay a trillion for another
Back on topic, this pretty much answers the question posed by the OP...
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Doubt many people would agree with you actually... And channel 9 or whoever isn't going to pay for the camera just to help the third umpire rather than to provide entertaining vision for their coverage, so is the ICC going to pick up the bill?

Honestly, how often does the frame issue prevent a decent decision being made? If you can't tell with the cameras they use, then I reckon theirs enough doubt to say that you can't be certain the batsman was out, and hence a "not out" call is the correct call.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think it's worth losing the "great" images to get a decision right.
But within the bounds of the rules, the decisions aren't wrong as they stand with the present technology. The rules state that if there's any doubt, it goes in favour of the batsman. With the current technology, umpires adhere to the rules and generally give close calls to the batsman. It's a correct decision.

It's impossible to say that most of the close decisions (where it seems only one more frame is needed to tell what actually happened) would be revealed in favour of the fielding side if this new technology is brought in. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I'm not at all convinced that the present run out replay status is a problem.
 

Bob Bamber

U19 12th Man
But within the bounds of the rules, the decisions aren't wrong as they stand with the present technology. The rules state that if there's any doubt, it goes in favour of the batsman. With the current technology, umpires adhere to the rules and generally give close calls to the batsman. It's a correct decision.

It's impossible to say that most of the close decisions (where it seems only one more frame is needed to tell what actually happened) would be revealed in favour of the fielding side if this new technology is brought in. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I'm not at all convinced that the present run out replay status is a problem.
It would rule out the doubt and make it perfectly clear the right decision. If it can't be decided at that speed. Then its not out , no question.
 

Sir Redman

State Vice-Captain
I think it's worth losing the "great" images to get a decision right.
In the last couple of series we've been seeing fewer and fewer images of a batsman striking the ball or a bowler's release and instead are seeing more and more crap shots of Lee showing off after taking a wicket or the Australian team in a huddle, so we've already started losing the 'great' images...
 

Josh

International Regular
In the last couple of series we've been seeing fewer and fewer images of a batsman striking the ball or a bowler's release and instead are seeing more and more crap shots of Lee showing off after taking a wicket or the Australian team in a huddle, so we've already started losing the 'great' images...
This is true.
 

Top