Why not use TV technology more?

[Fiery]

a statment like this has been over used and if it continues there is no way it'll be a 100%unless we put sensors in the bat and ball maybe even the stumps..

the point is.. no umpire in the history of the game has a 100%correct decision record.. yet we find this to be acceptable when there is technology that could reduce the error by how much i am unsure, but i would put my money on it its can be more realible than the human eye and every now and then even when techonolgy is used its not going to be conclusive or have grey area, then simple when in doubt cant be out. whats wrong with that iits the same strategy umpires use.

what he said

 

[slugger]

whats next? Batsmen with sensors in their bat and bowlers with them in there feet for no balls.

I say keep it like it is.

must be a batsmen...

 

[Speersy]

what he said

thats what she said

 

[Fiery]

thats what she said

 

[Richard]

whats next? Batsmen with sensors in their bat and bowlers with them in there feet for no balls.

If 'twere implementable, would be a fine idea.

 

[Manee]

I thought I'd post in this thread with my views that I think the umpire should wear earphones which are hooked into the stump microphone at the striker's end. This way, crowd interference will not obstruct the umpire's hearing of, say, Andrew Symonds' outside edge or Ricky Ponting's inside edge. There can also be a feature that the system temporarily shuts down (sort of like an internal fuse) in the event of massive noise of, e.g. the ball knocking the stump out of the ground.

This can help umpires without bringing in the moral issue of undermining the umpire or technology being sometimes false. Microphones are reliable and such a system will help optimise an umpire's hearing.

Just a thought...

 

[Richard]

That's one of many improvements which would cost absolutely nothing (bar a few quid which I$C$C and any board where there are stump-mics in place can afford) and would be stupidly easy to do that I'd have implemented.

But first, for the umpteenth time, I'd have something that meant no-balls did not have to be called by the standing-Umpire (or third-Umpire either).

 

[Manee]

But first, for the umpteenth time, I'd have something that meant no-balls did not have to be called by the standing-Umpire (or third-Umpire either).

Underground weight sensor in the two yards beyond the no ball line which sends out a signal (buzzing noise to the earphones?) but which is cut out when weight is put on the line?

Would be pretty expensive though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Considering that there are two bodies crossing the crease at the bowler's end at roughly the same time, that noball apparatus is easier said than done.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Underground weight sensor in the two yards beyond the no ball line which sends out a signal (buzzing noise to the earphones?) but which is cut out when weight is put on the line?

Would be pretty expensive though.

That won't be annoying for the umpire at all...

 

[Manee]

Considering that there are two bodies crossing the crease at the bowler's end at roughly the same time, that noball apparatus is easier said than done.

Split up the pitch into two halves and switch on/off as appropriate depending on the side the bowler is bowling on. I was just spitballing though.

 

[Manee]

That won't be annoying for the umpire at all...

No balls are not bowled that often. I meant that the signal does not come through at all if the bowler has his foot on the line.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No balls are not bowled that often. I meant that the signal does not come through at all if the bowler has his foot on the line.

But by that measure it'd still be buzzing during the run up and after the delivery. That's a lot of buzzing and I'd quit if I were an umpire and that was implemented.

 

[Richard]

Considering that there are two bodies crossing the crease at the bowler's end at roughly the same time, that noball apparatus is easier said than done.

It wouldn't be a straightforward instrument, but if anyone really tells me it'd not be possible to design something that'd do the job I'll speet on 'em.

I'll think of a design that'd work myself sometime, when I've had the chance to assess all the requirements.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Split up the pitch into two halves and switch on/off as appropriate depending on the side the bowler is bowling on. I was just spitballing though.

Opens itself up to a different potential error though, seeing as the system will have to manually be switched from left to right and back again. And some bowlers change over the wicket and back more than once in an over. The system would also have to be put on standby after every delivery, lest the batsmen trod on while running between the wickets. Wear and tear and such.

 

[Manee]

But by that measure it'd still be buzzing during the run up and after the delivery. That's a lot of buzzing and I'd quit if I were an umpire and that was implemented.

Why during the run up, it only buzzes if you are over the line and not on it. There is either a 20s delay after it buzzes (between deliveries) or the third umpire (or someone else) can do it manually - which would work well and only be a slight nuisance.

Again, I was just spitballing. This is not well thought out. Straight from my brain onto the screen.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Underground weight sensor in the two yards beyond the no ball line which sends out a signal (buzzing noise to the earphones?) but which is cut out when weight is put on the line?

Would be pretty expensive though.

In my mind, this implied that the buzzing noise would be standard and continuous and only cut out (as you said) when the foot lands on the line.

 

[Manee]

In my mind, this implied that the buzzing noise would be standard and continuous and only cut out (as you said) when the foot lands on the line.

But it is in the two yards beyond the no ball line and so that is when it is activated.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But it is in the two yards beyond the no ball line and so that is when it is activated.

Well then you have stated that the buzzing occurs when pressure is placed on that two yard area without applying any to the line. It's a lot clearer than saying it "cuts out" when pressure is applied to the line, because it implies that there's noise otherwise.

 

[Manee]

Well then you have stated that the buzzing occurs when pressure is placed on that two yard area without applying any to the line. It's a lot clearer than saying it "cuts out" when pressure is applied to the line, because it implies that there's noise otherwise.

Stop teaching me English!