BoyBrumby migrates to Australia. Develops gadget.

[Uppercut]

Nooo, it's not the tv screen, it's that your eyes can only see in 2d. Well, they get a 2d image each, so you do get some depth perception. But almost none compared to, say, six cameras coming from six different angles.

 

[zaremba]

So, if real time results can be produced, would you want every ball over 15 degrees no-balled? Probably the only way it can work, isn't it?

Results couldn't be instantaneous, because that wouldn't give the ICC enough time to digest them and hastily enact ad hoc rule changes which conveniently exonerate the game's biggest stars.

 

[silentstriker]

/sigh

 

[uvelocity]

Science over physical appearance.

I'm sure there must be some measurement/proof which will align the rules with the original spirit

why can't science back up the visual perception of a throw

 

[silentstriker]

Because how the visual system percieves things does not always match reality.

If you're going to have a rule other than 'looks like a throw', and use statements like straightening, and talk in degrees, then you have to rely on something other than the eyes, which are notoriously bad at accurately picking up reality.

 

[uvelocity]

Because how the visual system percieves things does not always match reality.

That's true, but in many cases it does.

Very little has been done to determine whether or not it's possible in this case.

 

[silentstriker]

That's true, but in many cases it does.

Very little has been done to determine whether or not it's possible in this case.

I'm not sure what that means. The rule change was because biomechanics experts said the human eye couldn't deal with the degree straightenings that were in the previous rule. What exactly are you looking for?

 

[uvelocity]

in an ideal world to me, the difference between a steyn and an ajmal would be evident with scientific proof. Now despite some other rumblings on here no data was actually released on the fast bowlers, so it's all pretty ambiguous.

I've posted a few times about the research which showed promise in using the flexion velocity as a measure, if I was a lawmaker I'd start there.

 

[zaremba]

So, if real time results can be produced, would you want every ball over 15 degrees no-balled? Probably the only way it can work, isn't it?

Because how the visual system percieves things does not always match reality.

If you're going to have a rule other than 'looks like a throw', and use statements like straightening, and talk in degrees, then you have to rely on something other than the eyes, which are notoriously bad at accurately picking up reality.

All this is true. What I don't understand, though, is why they have settled on 15 degrees. The ostensible reason is that this is the minimum degree of straightening that is visible to the human eye. But why should that be a relevant cut off point, given the unreliability of the eye, and given that they have sought to move to technology rather than the eye as the means of detecting throwing? Seems either muddle-headed or disingenuous. Possibly both.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

If they change the 15 degrees now, it's going to cause a lot of problems.

 

[BackFootPunch]

If this technology proves that, say, 40% of bowlers chuck according to current laws (including some who look to have clean actions) should the laws get changed or should all those bowlers have to fix their actions?

 

[Faizal Khan]

If this technology proves that, say, 40% of bowlers chuck according to current laws (including some who look to have clean actions) should the laws get changed or should all those bowlers have to fix their actions?

Indian, Lankan and Pakistani bowlers can keep their actions. Others may have to change.

 

[straw man]

All this is true. What I don't understand, though, is why they have settled on 15 degrees. The ostensible reason is that this is the minimum degree of straightening that is visible to the human eye. But why should that be a relevant cut off point, given the unreliability of the eye, and given that they have sought to move to technology rather than the eye as the means of detecting throwing? Seems either muddle-headed or disingenuous. Possibly both.

You have to draw the line somewhere - visual perception of throwing is an ok place to do that, though not ideal. Intuitively, you should instead draw the line at the point where bowlers gain an advantage by bending+straightening their arm more than others. Assessing that would probably be quite hard though, even if you restricted the term 'advantage' to just mean greater speed for fast bowlers or greater revs for spinners.

Plus any system needs to be simple enough for people at the ICC, BCCI and commentators like Simon Doull to not get horribly confused, completely misrepresent the system and then go on big rants about how it's ruining cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

All this is true. What I don't understand, though, is why they have settled on 15 degrees. The ostensible reason is that this is the minimum degree of straightening that is visible to the human eye. But why should that be a relevant cut off point, given the unreliability of the eye, and given that they have sought to move to technology rather than the eye as the means of detecting throwing? Seems either muddle-headed or disingenuous. Possibly both.

Because when the ruling came, there was no way to test it in game, and considering everyone was chucking due to the old guidelines, they had to come up with some number that would make sense in light of the facts, which umpires could use to report players, who would then be scientifically tested. The people who actually recommended it were former players, etc and they have spoken multiple times about why they chose the way they did. The 15 degrees wasn't decided in some backroom secret ICC meeting by administrators. Some people would still rather believe in conspiracies though.

And there still isn't a way to solve it in game, hopefully this technology is the answer.

 

[uvelocity]

Because when the ruling came, there was no way to test it in game, and considering everyone was chucking due to the old guidelines, they had to come up with some number that would make sense in light of the facts, which umpires could use to report players, who would then be scientifically tested. The people who actually recommended it were former players, etc and they have spoken multiple times about why they chose the way they did. The 15 degrees wasn't decided in some backroom secret ICC meeting by administrators. Some people would still rather believe in conspiracies though.

And there still isn't a way to solve it in game, hopefully this technology is the answer.

 

[marc71178]

If they change the 15 degrees now, it's going to cause a lot of problems.

Why would it?

 

[zaremba]

Because when the ruling came, there was no way to test it in game, and considering everyone was chucking due to the old guidelines, they had to come up with some number that would make sense in light of the facts, which umpires could use to report players, who would then be scientifically tested.

I see that they have to select a cut off point, and that such a cut off point is likely to be arbitrary.

My point is, given the complete unreliability of the human eye in such matters - something which had been fully established by the time of that decision, and which was the reason for the move to scientific testing - the adoption of a "visible to the human eye" cut off is pretty nonsensical and contradictory.

Anyway one aspect I'm interested in is how they have measured what degree of straightening the human eye is in fact capable of picking up. A lot of watchers think that they can see certain players straighten their arms - and the science says that they do - and the rather troubling answer is that even though it's there, and you thought you saw it, you didn't.

So how do they decide whether the viewer was not in fact witnessing the straightening of the arm which was in fact occurring? Genuinely interested to know.

 

[silentstriker]

So how do they decide whether the viewer was not in fact witnessing the straightening of the arm which was in fact occurring? Genuinely interested to know.

That was the purpose of the scientific biomechanical tests. If it looks suspicious to the umpire, they report it, and science gives the final answer. The fifteen degree was chosen because A) everyone (except sarwan) was breaking the old rules anyway, and B) the only way to make it valid was to either test everyone or have the umpires report it...which meant there would have to be an objective level which could be seen by the eye. There was no way to technologically test everyone all the time, both for economical reasons, and the fact that it would take a long time. The nature of some actions meant that some were very well hidden (e.g McGrath), while others looked much worse than they were (Murali). Hence 15 degrees which the committee recommended because they thought it would be the most reasonable if we still want umpires to decide at all regarding no balls during a game to keep some semblance of order (so you couldn't throw something baseball style). If and when this technology is implemented, it would be much easier to come up with some other degree rule, since the human eye, and it's imperfections, will be taken out of the equation.\

Considering the limitations at the time, as well as the results of the scientific tests that were produced, I think it was a very fair compromise. They let the data lead them, instead of personal biases or historical momentum. And the ICC actually listened to the cricket committee which recommended this on advice of the panel of former players, biomechanics experts, etc. So that's a win in my book. Maybe once this technology is implemented, we can talk about if there is a better rule than the fifteen degrees. Until then, I'm satisfied with the status quo.

 

[zaremba]

Ok, but what tests did they do to set the 15 degree rule itself? Ie to establish that the human eye could see 16 degrees of straightening but not 14 degrees?

 

[silentstriker]

Ok, but what tests did they do to set the 15 degree rule itself? Ie to establish that the human eye could see 16 degrees of straightening but not 14 degrees?

As far as I know: They tested bowlers with different actions and different flexion and took high speed videos of them. They then showed the videos to various people (mostly other players) and until about 15 degrees, it was very hard to tell with the human eye if anything was wrong. After fifteen degrees, the human eye started picking up the straighteing with a fair amount of accuracy. Now, of course, 14 vs. 15 vs. 16 is going to be arbitrary, it's not going to be an off/on thing but a continuum where at a certain point the human eye can start detecting it on a regular basis (I'm sure a lot would also depend on the angle you viewed it from, the individual involved, and of course the action of the bowler, which probably plays the biggest role). They came to a consensus based on the data that 15 rather than 14 or 16 made sense. But it was clear that the original guidelines of 5 or 10 didn't work.

If you want more data or clarification on the methodology they used, you might be able to contact one of the biomechanical experts and ask. I think of them was Dr. Paul Hurrion. Unless there is some kind of confidentiality agreement (which I doubt), I suspect they'll be more than happy to respond with more information about their research.