Technology such as Hawkeye and Hotspot are, and probably will continue to be, used to assist umpires in making decisions on the cricket pitch. One of the arguments against the use of technology is that referrals to a 3rd umpire slow the game down too much. This is particularly true with decisions on run-outs and stumpings, where a slow motion replay is used to judge whether the batsman's bat has crossed the crease before the bails are removed. Often the exact point at which the bails are removed happens between frames, making it uncertain whether the batsman is in or out, resulting in multiple viewings from various angles by the 3rd umpire before a decision is reached.
In order to speed up the process, a high resolution camera mounted on the roof of the pavilion/grandstand at square leg is focused on the popping crease. The stumps and bails are modified such that the grooves and spigots are covered with a conductive material that completes a simple electrical circuit, which when broken by the removal of the bails, triggers the camera. (Stumps already house cameras so should easily be able to accomodate the necessary wires). This single image is then immediately available to the 3rd umpire at precisely the right time to judge whether the batsman is in or out.
The umpires on the field carry ball counters (small, hand held clickers) that could have an additional "not sure" button that when pressed alerts the 3rd umpire to their indecision and he can then respond within seconds of the appeal by lighting the red or green light, avoiding all this hand signaling and walkie-talkie nonsense.
An alternative to coloured lights could be a hand buzzer in the right armpit of the field umpires, triggered remotely by the 3rd when the decision is "out", giving a far more traditional feel to run-outs and stumpings.-- shudderprose, Apr 28 2009 Hawkeye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye [shudderprose, Apr 28 2009] HotSpot http://en.wikipedia.../Hot_Spot_(cricket) [shudderprose, Apr 28 2009] Civilisation http://web.maths.un...du.au/~jim/cvr.html [shudderprose, Apr 28 2009] Wicket is also a mini door... http://www.cornelli...Doorfromoutside.jpgwithin a door. I had one in my garage years ago. [Zuzu, Apr 28 2009] The Indian national game http://www.amazon.c...3JOY%3D#reader-linkaccidently discovered by the English [DenholmRicshaw, Apr 29 2009] Augmented Reality http://www.noob.us/...-augmented-reality/much better than *real* data... [4whom, May 03 2009] Cricket has been described as a way of transmitting civilisation to others. If they could be taught a good forward defensive, they're well on their way.-- shudderprose, Apr 28 2009 I'd tend to propose an implementation so each part of the wicket can report (in real-time) when it detached from the other parts that it should be connected to. Making this system fit in each individual bail could be a bit challenging because they are smaller than the stumps.
I've very prone to support the view that Cricket is the embodiment of both skill and civilisation, of course.-- Aristotle, Apr 28 2009 [Aristotle], perhaps I didn't make it all that clear, but this is precisely what it would do. The spigots of the bails and grooves of the stumps would be coated with a conductive metal. Current across the bail would be through a central wire or external strip joining the 2 coated spigots. Any loss of contact between bail and stump would break the circuit. 2 separate circuits may be necessary - 1 for leg stump-bail-middle stump and another for middle stump-bail-off stump.-- shudderprose, Apr 28 2009 [shudderprose] - "Cricket has been described as a way of transmitting civilisation to others."
[Aristotle] - "I've very prone to support the view that Cricket is the embodiment of both skill and civilisation, of course"
Wow. I must confess I'm curious what kind of endorsement the two of you would offer for polo.-- normzone, Apr 28 2009 //has been described// [link]-- shudderprose, Apr 28 2009 Elephant polo is the only way to play polo, apparently the elephants really enjoy playing it!-- Aristotle, Apr 29 2009 <reads DenholmRicshaw's link, turns purple and starts frothing at the mouth> Fishbone from me. We need less technology in sport, not more. Although I could be persuaded round to croissantage if breaking of the wicket triggered a spikey portcullis to spring up from the popping crease rather than just activate a camera. Suicidal singles would then become exactly that.-- DrBob, Apr 29 2009 I am with DrBob in terms of Cricket (and largely Tennis). THe problem with the technology being available to the broadcaster but NOT the Umpire is that the umpires end up looking culpable for bad decisions when in fact the real time speed is exceptionally hard to read. The technology being used in *all* instances by the umpires would kill the game.I like your idea a lot but would not like to see it implemented on a wicket-- gnomethang, Apr 29 2009 Bails were possibly the most significant technological innovation in the history of the game, if you exclude a crease, the opposition, and the bat, and of course the ball. It makes sense of course to then concentrate on enhancing the ability of the bails. As [zentom] always says: "don't concentrate on the finger"
More seriously, I have a reducability problem with this particular innovation. I suppose it is analogous to the "don't bring tech in at all" school of thought. Every point of "better" measurement has been plagued by the "one more frame" or one more instance of data, and there would be a better decision. Theoretically this could go on, and on, ad nauseum.
I am a big fan of augmented reality. Even more so for Third Umpires, and solely, for Third Umpires. <see link>-- 4whom, May 03 2009 Changes in the game we know as cricket are not limited to those we've seen in the 21st century, and 'technology' is responsible for much of these - from outfield lawnmowers, physical and chemical pitch tests to bat, ball and protective equipment design. Change (and IMO, progress) is inevitable and only becomes a source of controversy once it threatens to change too much, or take away from what we think the game should be.
As much as we want to be able to debate the merits of an unclear umpires decision, television and technology have taken away much of the doubt. The umpire will always be the muppet if he makes the wrong decision because of this 'advantage' that television offers. The logical conclusion then would be to either remove all cameras that might offer the viewer an advantage over the umpire (hardly likely to happen), or to make use of this technology to protect the umpires and ensure the fairest outcome from any decision. Sad as it is, there probably won't be many more Geoff Hursts or Mark Cuetos, and with the transparency that now exists in these close calls, it would seem only fair to protect the umpires/referees making these decisions.
My gripe with technology is the time it takes to make the decisions.-- shudderprose, May 04 2009 random, halfbakery