h a l f b a k e r yNaturally low in facts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
To cut to the chase, the idea is for analysis of bowling actions to be included in cricket television coverage... expanded below.
In recent years there has been much focus on bowling actions of several players around the world. For those from non-cricketing backgrounds (who haven’t already clicked
the ‘Back’ button or the ‘fishbone’), bowlers can gain significant advantage over the batsmen in ‘chucking’ (ie throwing) the ball.
The number of international level players who have been accused (or at least referred to the International Cricket Council for analysis) of chucking over the last five years is in the double digits. Several players have undergone remedial work to fix their actions. Despite this a stigma sits with these players even after being cleared by the ICC.
Cricket coverage is becoming more and more technical, with tools such as ‘Hawkeye’ (a computer simulation that shows the trajectory of the ball and predicts the path the ball would have taken if past the batsman) Stump-cam (a view from the stumps) and ‘Snicko’ (which shows if the ball touched the bat on its way past) used to enhance the viewing experience.
What I am proposing is the use of similar analytical tools to analyze bowlers’ actions in a match situation. The use of discreet electrodes at, above and below the elbow joint show the relative position of the joint through the bowling action. The existing camera angles could also provide data to the analysis. A program translates the results into a graphical representation of the bowling action. I would think many bowlers would volunteer for this (after testing the technology to make sure they weren’t going to incriminate themselves ;) ) in order to shed the stigma.
I would like this to be part of the coverage of the game, so that endless pointless debates (Is x a chucker? No, but y certainly is, etc etc) could be nipped in the bud. The analysis would not have to be shown on every ball, but on any questionable balls. Or perhaps available as one of the views in a digital telecast.
Cricket Law 24 - see point 3 (The arm)
http://www.lords.or...t/lw_0000000050.asp
The chucking rule for anyone interested... [Lacus Trasumenus, Oct 17 2004]
A humourous look at the various gizmos
http://www.thebladd....asp?CID=476&EID=66
What they may use the analysis for [Lacus Trasumenus, Oct 17 2004]
Chuckie
http://www.popcorn.dk/images/nyt014.jpg
[thumbwax, Oct 17 2004]
[link]
|
| |
//so that endless pointless debates [...] could be nipped in the bud// |
|
| |
Aw, come on. Why else do people do people watch sport? |
|
| |
I agree [Detly], I crap on as much as anyone... but even if resolution could be reached on this issue, there is still plenty to debate ( / crap on about). |
|
| |
[Lacus Trasumenus], did'nt the umpires do a good enough job? and besiders..... its not always easy to cacth false action even though a simulation.... murlitharan has an defected hand.... but he does not chuck... |
|
| |
I don't know that this could be picked up with sensors/transmitters that were small enough to unencumber the bowler. As [nomad] stated, Muralitharan was closely watched and deemed to be a bowler, and this happened and was resolved within a season of being addressed (I think!).
I would suggest that the current situation works OK and that your add-ons will inhibit the bowler.
Dr Bob can surely provide an opinion. |
|
| |
To be honest [nomadic], I believe that the umpires who have called murali suffered for their decision. |
|
| |
This idea was not intended purely because of murali, moreso because when he is playing the topic comes up more often. There is a high profile bowler in Australia who despite being cleared has suffered at the hands of opposition crowds (particularly the Barmy Army) with shouts of no-ball from the crowd very common. |
|
| |
I have tried to search for details of the bio-mechanical tests that bowlers undergo, to see if they could be translated to an on-field scenario. I wouldn't think the transmitters would need to transmit further than a couple of metres, because they could relay the signal from a transmitter in the stump area. |
|
| |
It's okay. I haven't the slightest clue what this is about. |
|
| |
//ignorant racist turds//
[Toadinnov] That those umpires should be labelled 'racist' because of making a decision in accordance with the laws of the game is exactly what I am talking about. All the more reason to make bowling actions more transparent. |
|
| |
Anyway, I deliberately didn't name any bowlers in my idea because individuals aren't the issue. There are several other bowlers that I find it extremely frustrating to observe due to questionable actions. |
|
| |
DrBob's opinion is to give this idea a big +. My own favourite bowler, James Kirtley, suffered massively from chucking allegations in a Test Match a couple of years ago despite the fact that he'd been playing in County cricket for years without being called (he has a hyper-extending elbow - it bends backwards when he bowls so his action can look at bit odd on occasions).
I don't think that electrodes are required though. A few strategically placed dots (as per cinema motion capture technique) should be sufficient. |
|
| |