Lost me here. Umpires don't even try to look for no-balls as it is. If I had to pick one part of the game that needs to be taken away from the on-field umps and should go to automation/tv umpire then it would be no-balls.
Something in the back of my mind told me it was trialed a few years ago in an automated fashion and was decided to be a failure? But yeah, true. On the rare occasion I got hauled into umpiring, I never bothered either unless they were Mohammad Amir style ones.
Hey0 Richard
Not sure about automation but I don't see why it would be so hard for the tv umpire to just watch footage of the front line every delivery, and feed the info to the on-field umpire (or just make the call on the big screen) within a matter of seconds.
Yeah, I agree with this. At worst, the TV umpire just has to say "That one was close, give me a minute to check a replay". I guess having the game stop for that on an otherwise total non-event of a delivery could be a bit boring, though. but it should be pretty uncommon
Wouldn't really have to stop though would it? If it's a fast bowler the decision would be made by the time they're back to the mark and you wouldn't lose a second, even if it's close.
Yeah, in most cases you could probably decide either way by the time the next delivery was ready to be bowled, plus spinners really shouldn't be running it close anyway so that'd barely happen. Fast bowlers from the last ball of an over would be the only time there'd be a hold up, I guess
Yeah didn't think of that. The other likely effect of such a system is that we'd see a lot less no-balls being bowled in general if bowlers are being pinged for it with regularity, making the system used less often anyway.
It was trialled by the ICC and determined to be cost ineffective (ie - you dont get a significant enough improvement in calling accuracy to justify the cost of a person to make the calls). There's an article about it somewhere on the web that I've linked to on the forums before
With this though, how do you differentiate between something going past the crease that's allowed to (i.e. part of the front foot) and the whole foot going past? Or if the foot goes past the crease, but then swings back slightly and part of it ends up grounded (no idea if this happens tbh). I'm sure it's possible, I just can't quite work out how specifcally it would work whilst being foolproof. Plus the bowler can do whatever they like once they've delivered the ball, so presuambly you'd have to get someone to switch the sensor off as the ball is released?
I was trying to get a rise out of *****'s need to suck up to authority. Stop being reasonable
If you place a sensor strip that's just adjacent to the back edge of the popping crease, that should in theory work, right? So long as the bowler manages to make some contact with his front foot on the strip, he's fine. I think it's a legal delivery if the foot lands behind the crease and then gets dragged forward, so that should be taken care of as well. They'll have to think of some way for it not to get set off by the non-striker though.
Presumably you'd still need someone telling the sensor when it needs to be checking for contact though? The only important time for the foot to be on the sensor is at the exact moment of delivery - I guess you could get the umpire to acitvate it with a remote control of some kind when the bowler starts their run up/passes the umpire or something, then if the sensor reigsters nothing in the next x amount of time it calls a no-ball, then it switches itself off again - if it was on all the time it would presumably be constantly calling no-balls at any given moment that nothing's touching the crease.
It is, or I believe it is. But why then allow the influence of the actual umpire's call, which is far more uncertain than DRS' margin of error? Makes zero sense. There's nothing I've ever heard that's put me off a simple solution - more than half ball out, less not out. No influence over the technology, which we know is a superior decision maker.