Yesterday’s controversial decision to give Root out gave me a moment for pause. Snicko was used to ‘back up’ the umpires original decision. Commentators were being a tad scathing, stating that the ‘nick’ didn’t quite coincide with the ball passing the bat on the video.

Which brings me to my question.

The batsman in normally standing approximately 1 metre in front of the stump microphone. The speed of sound is approximately 340 m/s. So there’ll be about a 3 millisecond delay between any contact and what the microphone will pick up. Now if a bowler is reasonably quick the ball may be travelling at about 80 mph (35 m/s) when it reaches the batsman. This means that the snicko will pick up the noise about 0.1 metres after the actual contact.

Now I’ve had a look around the net and I can’t find anywhere which claims or states that the speed of the ball is allowed for.

Anyone got any ideas.

here sibeen, have a snicko.

on a serious note i think you’re probably getting a bit technical for the average channel 9 commentator. and audience member.

sibeen said:

Yesterday’s controversial decision to give Root out gave me a moment for pause. Snicko was used to ‘back up’ the umpires original decision. Commentators were being a tad scathing, stating that the ‘nick’ didn’t quite coincide with the ball passing the bat on the video.

Which brings me to my question.

The batsman in normally standing approximately 1 metre in front of the stump microphone. The speed of sound is approximately 340 m/s. So there’ll be about a 3 millisecond delay between any contact and what the microphone will pick up. Now if a bowler is reasonably quick the ball may be travelling at about 80 mph (35 m/s) when it reaches the batsman. This means that the snicko will pick up the noise about 0.1 metres after the actual contact.

Now I’ve had a look around the net and I can’t find anywhere which claims or states that the speed of the ball is allowed for.

Anyone got any ideas.

It has apparently always been a problem.

Previously the techs had to “marry” the sound with the vision, which was why it hasn’t been used.

I believe there has been some improvement in the technology.

JudgeMental said:

on a serious note i think you’re probably getting a bit technical for the average channel 9 commentator. and audience member.

Enforce a higher standard of average…..

What is Real Time Snicko (RTS)?

With the Decision Review System (DRS) playing a major role in the Ashes, there are news reports about improving the technology. The old snickometer is slow because of a manual process needed to align video and audio; this is why it isn’t part of DRS. Real Time Snicko uses the same idea as Snicko but using a dedicated hardware system to automatically align picture and audio and so speed up the process

http://acousticengineering.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-science-behind-snicko/

looks like it would have to be accounted for going by this.

wouldn’t be hard to put sensors in the bats…..

JudgeMental said:

What is Real Time Snicko (RTS)?

With the Decision Review System (DRS) playing a major role in the Ashes, there are news reports about improving the technology. The old snickometer is slow because of a manual process needed to align video and audio; this is why it isn’t part of DRS. Real Time Snicko uses the same idea as Snicko but using a dedicated hardware system to automatically align picture and audio and so speed up the process

http://acousticengineering.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-science-behind-snicko/

looks like it would have to be accounted for going by this.

Hmm, the frame rate of Australian TV seems to be about 25 per second. That’s a 40 mSec frame. So they’re trying to match a 3 mSec sound difference with a 49 mSec video difference.

You have to rely on that the “marrying “ process is correct to hundreths of a second.

So you are relying on someone doing this every time correctly, with little time to review for possible mistakes.

In this incedent there seemed no apparent reason for the snicko to record, other than a “feather”. The bat was away from the pad.

tauto said:

You have to rely on that the “marrying “ process is correct to hundreths of a second.

So you are relying on someone doing this every time correctly, with little time to review for possible mistakes.

In this incedent there seemed no apparent reason for the snicko to record, other than a “feather”. The bat was away from the pad.

The old system was the manual marrying of vision and sound, not the current system.

JudgeMental said:

What is Real Time Snicko (RTS)?

With the Decision Review System (DRS) playing a major role in the Ashes, there are news reports about improving the technology. The old snickometer is slow because of a manual process needed to align video and audio; this is why it isn’t part of DRS. Real Time Snicko uses the same idea as Snicko but using a dedicated hardware system to automatically align picture and audio and so speed up the process

http://acousticengineering.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-science-behind-snicko/

looks like it would have to be accounted for going by this.

—-

So we have to assume this system is mistake free?

jjjust moi said:

tauto said:

You have to rely on that the “marrying “ process is correct to hundreths of a second.

So you are relying on someone doing this every time correctly, with little time to review for possible mistakes.

In this incedent there seemed no apparent reason for the snicko to record, other than a “feather”. The bat was away from the pad.

The old system was the manual marrying of vision and sound, not the current system.

with this bat i thee wed….

if anyone here is aware of LBW then let them speak now

wookiemeister said:

if anyone here is aware of LBW then let them speak now

Hi.

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

wifi sensors?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

party_pants said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

I can visualize more problems with this idea than solutions.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

I can visualize more problems with this idea than solutions.

Give me 3

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

I can visualize more problems with this idea than solutions.

Give me 3

first one would be the wiring from the sensor.. or as i said.. wifi?
then there’s the constant gardening scratching etc the hitting of the bat against other objects from pads to the ground itself..

There are so many signals that could be confused with the ball snicking the edge ever so gently.

party_pants said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

Vibrograf

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

tauto said:

morrie said:

party_pants said:

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

I’d have thought that somewhere in on the back of the bat even and a transmitter in the handle would make a solid enough arrangement for the job, provided the accelerometer could be calibrated to the rebound difference between the ball and the ground..

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

morrie said:

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

knocks in cricket aren’t that hard…

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

knocks in cricket aren’t that hard…

hmm ever been hit by a bat or a ball?

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

morrie said:

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

knocks in cricket aren’t that hard…

hmm ever been hit by a bat or a ball?

I’m not made out of a high enough percentage of carbon….

Carmen_Sandiego said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

And the gloves?

Peak Warming Man said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

roughbarked said:

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

And the gloves?

and we are going to be transmitting these vibrations, how?
How are they going to be tracked?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

—-

How?

tauto said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

roughbarked said:

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

—-

How?

I suspect they are preparing their submission while we wait.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

why have they chosen this system over putting sensors in the bats? If the sensors are calibrated to the density of the balls shouldn’t that rule out a snick being it striking anything else, doesn’t it?

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

Not so sure/ there’s bat hitting pad, or bat hitting ground – which also need to be taken into account. if bat hits pad or the ground at around the same time as the ball passes the edge of the bat, how can we be sure the signal is ball hitting bat and not one of the other two? They often happen all at the same time.

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

—-

How?

I suspect they are preparing their submission while we wait.

—-

I suspect they are hungover ;)

party_pants said:

morrie said:

party_pants said:

there’s no way I know of that a sensor in the bat can tell if the ball hit it or not.
even if they did there is no way it can be guaranteed that the batter can’t tamper with it.

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

Not so sure/ there’s bat hitting pad, or bat hitting ground – which also need to be taken into account. if bat hits pad or the ground at around the same time as the ball passes the edge of the bat, how can we be sure the signal is ball hitting bat and not one of the other two? They often happen all at the same time.

Or so very close together as to be indiscernible. This is why we use more than snicko now and also the reason why snicko isn’t considered sufficient evidence without also seeing a hot spot or a deviation.

I’d change the ball to a tennis ball, its unreasonable hard and could do serious damage if you got hit by it

a tennis ball would make the game more interesting

The microphone in the stumps is close enough to pick up all the snicks and far enough away to lose some of the lesser ones. If only the crowd noise wasn’t also there..

wookiemeister said:

I’d change the ball to a tennis ball, its unreasonable hard and could do serious damage if you got hit by it

a tennis ball would make the game more interesting

Nah. the cricket bat ruins them in no time flat.

sibeen said:

Yesterday’s controversial decision to give Root out gave me a moment for pause. Snicko was used to ‘back up’ the umpires original decision. Commentators were being a tad scathing, stating that the ‘nick’ didn’t quite coincide with the ball passing the bat on the video.

Which brings me to my question.

The batsman in normally standing approximately 1 metre in front of the stump microphone. The speed of sound is approximately 340 m/s. So there’ll be about a 3 millisecond delay between any contact and what the microphone will pick up. Now if a bowler is reasonably quick the ball may be travelling at about 80 mph (35 m/s) when it reaches the batsman. This means that the snicko will pick up the noise about 0.1 metres after the actual contact.

Now I’ve had a look around the net and I can’t find anywhere which claims or states that the speed of the ball is allowed for.

Anyone got any ideas.

—-

Yeah.

Wind speed could have an effect. Does the software allow for that.

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

And the gloves?

and we are going to be transmitting these vibrations, how?
How are they going to be tracked?

Bluetooth transmitter in the bat, with a synced timestamp with the broadcast system.
“This bat, at this location made contact with the ball/ground at this precise time”

“

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

morrie said:

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

Not so sure/ there’s bat hitting pad, or bat hitting ground – which also need to be taken into account. if bat hits pad or the ground at around the same time as the ball passes the edge of the bat, how can we be sure the signal is ball hitting bat and not one of the other two? They often happen all at the same time.

Or so very close together as to be indiscernible. This is why we use more than snicko now and also the reason why snicko isn’t considered sufficient evidence without also seeing a hot spot or a deviation.

Well no it isn’t/ For Root’s dismissal there was no hot-spot or deviation on the slow-mo. There was only Snicko as the ball passed the bat. At the time ball passed the bat, the bat was sway from pad and ground. Thus the TV umpire decided that he could not overturn the original decision – aqll three would have had to show nothing.

It’s a failure of the review system that they don’t look at if from a clean slate and make the best decision they can. They start with the premise that the original decision was correct and only overturn it if all the available review tools come up negative. If one of them shows a slight positive then the original decision is upheld.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

I’d change the ball to a tennis ball, its unreasonable hard and could do serious damage if you got hit by it

a tennis ball would make the game more interesting

Nah. the cricket bat ruins them in no time flat.

you just change the ball every so many hits, keeps everyone on their toes

tauto said:

sibeen said:

Yesterday’s controversial decision to give Root out gave me a moment for pause. Snicko was used to ‘back up’ the umpires original decision. Commentators were being a tad scathing, stating that the ‘nick’ didn’t quite coincide with the ball passing the bat on the video.

Which brings me to my question.

The batsman in normally standing approximately 1 metre in front of the stump microphone. The speed of sound is approximately 340 m/s. So there’ll be about a 3 millisecond delay between any contact and what the microphone will pick up. Now if a bowler is reasonably quick the ball may be travelling at about 80 mph (35 m/s) when it reaches the batsman. This means that the snicko will pick up the noise about 0.1 metres after the actual contact.

Now I’ve had a look around the net and I can’t find anywhere which claims or states that the speed of the ball is allowed for.

Anyone got any ideas.

—-

Yeah.

Wind speed could have an effect. Does the software allow for that.

I’d think that the umpires have watched enough cricket to be able to use these visual and audio tools to assist them in making decisions.

tauto said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

roughbarked said:

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

—-

How?

Digital signal processing and triangulation. Similar technology is in common use in all sorts of industries so it is nothing new.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Not so sure/ there’s bat hitting pad, or bat hitting ground – which also need to be taken into account. if bat hits pad or the ground at around the same time as the ball passes the edge of the bat, how can we be sure the signal is ball hitting bat and not one of the other two? They often happen all at the same time.

Or so very close together as to be indiscernible. This is why we use more than snicko now and also the reason why snicko isn’t considered sufficient evidence without also seeing a hot spot or a deviation.

Well no it isn’t/ For Root’s dismissal there was no hot-spot or deviation on the slow-mo. There was only Snicko as the ball passed the bat. At the time ball passed the bat, the bat was sway from pad and ground. Thus the TV umpire decided that he could not overturn the original decision – aqll three would have had to show nothing.

It’s a failure of the review system that they don’t look at if from a clean slate and make the best decision they can. They start with the premise that the original decision was correct and only overturn it if all the available review tools come up negative. If one of them shows a slight positive then the original decision is upheld.

It is only a system failure if an Aussie gets out. Otherwise it is perfect…

Carmen_Sandiego said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

And the gloves?

and we are going to be transmitting these vibrations, how?
How are they going to be tracked?

Bluetooth transmitter in the bat, with a synced timestamp with the broadcast system.
“This bat, at this location made contact with the ball/ground at this precise time”

“

OK so we have that part sorted then?

Now how does the sensor know what it has hit?

This is still only a tool to be used in conjunction with others, to be able to make decisions.. The two umpires out on the field usually do a very good job.

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

morrie said:

A simple accelerometer would detect such contact. From there it is just a matter of relaying the signal.

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Solid state devices. There is a big difference between the various types of impact. Signal processing would sort that out.

Stealth said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Or so very close together as to be indiscernible. This is why we use more than snicko now and also the reason why snicko isn’t considered sufficient evidence without also seeing a hot spot or a deviation.

Well no it isn’t/ For Root’s dismissal there was no hot-spot or deviation on the slow-mo. There was only Snicko as the ball passed the bat. At the time ball passed the bat, the bat was sway from pad and ground. Thus the TV umpire decided that he could not overturn the original decision – aqll three would have had to show nothing.

It’s a failure of the review system that they don’t look at if from a clean slate and make the best decision they can. They start with the premise that the original decision was correct and only overturn it if all the available review tools come up negative. If one of them shows a slight positive then the original decision is upheld.

It is only a system failure if an Aussie gets out. Otherwise it is perfect…

The interesting thing is that the same third umpire made the same decisions in England and we failed to have any of our appeals upheld.

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

——

But could it detect the difference between a bat striking ball, pad or ground?

The sensitivity required may easily be damaged by the hard knocks.

Solid state devices. There is a big difference between the various types of impact. Signal processing would sort that out.

it would know that the bat had nicked something. For sure it would know whether iot was the meat of the bat or the faintest of edges but the very slightest of nicks could well still be difficult to discern between say ball or shoe or pad buckle etc.

roughbarked said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

roughbarked said:

and we are going to be transmitting these vibrations, how?
How are they going to be tracked?

Bluetooth transmitter in the bat, with a synced timestamp with the broadcast system.
“This bat, at this location made contact with the ball/ground at this precise time”

“

Now how does the sensor know what it has hit?

By the sound. A ball would probably have a shorter “attack” than the ground, as it is harder and a direct hit, along with other acoustic properties.

And if not, you just use multiple sensors in the bat and triangulate the origin of the noise. It’s not rocket surgery.

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

sibeen said:

Yesterday’s controversial decision to give Root out gave me a moment for pause. Snicko was used to ‘back up’ the umpires original decision. Commentators were being a tad scathing, stating that the ‘nick’ didn’t quite coincide with the ball passing the bat on the video.

Which brings me to my question.

The batsman in normally standing approximately 1 metre in front of the stump microphone. The speed of sound is approximately 340 m/s. So there’ll be about a 3 millisecond delay between any contact and what the microphone will pick up. Now if a bowler is reasonably quick the ball may be travelling at about 80 mph (35 m/s) when it reaches the batsman. This means that the snicko will pick up the noise about 0.1 metres after the actual contact.

Now I’ve had a look around the net and I can’t find anywhere which claims or states that the speed of the ball is allowed for.

Anyone got any ideas.

—-

Yeah.

Wind speed could have an effect. Does the software allow for that.

I’d think that the umpires have watched enough cricket to be able to use these visual and audio tools to assist them in making decisions.

—

Nah. Wind carries sound. If you have a gust of wind carrying sound then a hundrenth of a second move where that sound was from.is critical.

It would be simple enough to put an accelerometer inside the ball too. Could be read with rf signal.

Many years ago I went to a conference where there was a report by some researchers from BHP who put a set of accelerometers in a ball and threw it into a stream of iron ore. They recovered it and retrieved info on the impacts it had gone through. They called it the Smart Lump because it represented a piece of lump iron ore. Electronics have come a long way since then. I have a recording triaxial accelerometer that plugs into a USB port.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

tauto said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Could be done pretty easily, actually. A vibration/acoustic sensor in the handle could tell the difference between a ball, pads, and the ground. A couple of sensors down the guts could also pinpoint the impact location.

—-

How?

Digital signal processing and triangulation. Similar technology is in common use in all sorts of industries so it is nothing new.

—-

Wouldn’t work really well for a cricket bat would it?

morrie said:

It would be simple enough to put an accelerometer inside the ball too. Could be read with rf signal.

Many years ago I went to a conference where there was a report by some researchers from BHP who put a set of accelerometers in a ball and threw it into a stream of iron ore. They recovered it and retrieved info on the impacts it had gone through. They called it the Smart Lump because it represented a piece of lump iron ore. Electronics have come a long way since then. I have a recording triaxial accelerometer that plugs into a USB port.

All good. It is probably more useful but it may eliminate the on ground umpires altogether?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

By the sound. A ball would probably have a shorter “attack” than the ground, as it is harder and a direct hit, along with other acoustic properties.

And if not, you just use multiple sensors in the bat and triangulate the origin of the noise. It’s not rocket surgery.

What happens if a batter just drives a nail through a couple of sensors?

Installing a set of standard sensors inside the bat isn’t going to be easy given they are all made of solid wood. Also, each batsman usually has a lucrative contract with a bat manufacturer to use their particular brand of bat.

I think the main problem would be with discerning what made the sound. Triangulation might work, but with wooden bats of differing density that change over the course of an inning, balls that change of the course of an innings making a difinative sound-type stamp would be problematic.

Is a snick on the edge of the bat? Have deformable edge that shows the impact? Paint that flakes off or something.

party_pants said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

By the sound. A ball would probably have a shorter “attack” than the ground, as it is harder and a direct hit, along with other acoustic properties.

And if not, you just use multiple sensors in the bat and triangulate the origin of the noise. It’s not rocket surgery.

What happens if a batter just drives a nail through a couple of sensors?

Installing a set of standard sensors inside the bat isn’t going to be easy given they are all made of solid wood. Also, each batsman usually has a lucrative contract with a bat manufacturer to use their particular brand of bat.

Don’t know why a batsman would be driving nails into his bats nor do I comprehend why drilling holes in bats wouldn’t compromise the integrity of the bat.

tauto said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

tauto said:

—-

How?

Digital signal processing and triangulation. Similar technology is in common use in all sorts of industries so it is nothing new.

—-

Wouldn’t work really well for a cricket bat would it?

I can’t see why not.

Stealth said:

I think the main problem would be with discerning what made the sound. Triangulation might work, but with wooden bats of differing density that change over the course of an inning, balls that change of the course of an innings making a difinative sound-type stamp would be problematic.

Not that the problems couldn’t be surmounted over time and trial but yes it would be complicated.

Skunkworks said:

Is a snick on the edge of the bat? Have deformable edge that shows the impact? Paint that flakes off or something.

Great for the first over, what about when you have knocked the edge a fair bit on the way to a double ton?

Ok, that wouldn’t be a problem the poms need worry about, but the rest of us…

Skunkworks said:

Is a snick on the edge of the bat? Have deformable edge that shows the impact? Paint that flakes off or something.

Those things already happen and we see evidence all the time. The batsmen often look at their bat for evidence.

Stealth said:

Skunkworks said:

Is a snick on the edge of the bat? Have deformable edge that shows the impact? Paint that flakes off or something.

Great for the first over, what about when you have knocked the edge a fair bit on the way to a double ton?

Ok, that wouldn’t be a problem the poms need worry about, but the rest of us…

Every snick could be marked and catalogued digitally.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

tauto said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Digital signal processing and triangulation. Similar technology is in common use in all sorts of industries so it is nothing new.

—-

Wouldn’t work really well for a cricket bat would it?

I can’t see why not.

—-

The very hard vibrations on the sensor..

roughbarked said:

Stealth said:

Skunkworks said:

Is a snick on the edge of the bat? Have deformable edge that shows the impact? Paint that flakes off or something.

Great for the first over, what about when you have knocked the edge a fair bit on the way to a double ton?

Ok, that wouldn’t be a problem the poms need worry about, but the rest of us…

Every snick could be marked and catalogued digitally.

Make it the batsmanship decision. If a batsman doesn’t walk and the DRS make a positive out, then they get a match ban or something…

i doubt any batsman would want a bat that had a non-integrity issue. handles have flew so putting electronics in them and routing wires would affect the performance. having sensors in voids within the blade, even if filled (filled with what and how does the filler’s characteristics differ from solid wood) would be something that the batsman would be wary of. remember the aluminium bats?

party_pants said:

What happens if a batter just drives a nail through a couple of sensors?

Installing a set of standard sensors inside the bat isn’t going to be easy given they are all made of solid wood. Also, each batsman usually has a lucrative contract with a bat manufacturer to use their particular brand of bat.

Fair call. Retrofitting to the bat externally may be an option, (I have hardware that could do most of what this system does that is the size of two 10c pieces, including battery) but wouldn’t be as good as one in-built into the bat.

Stealth said:

Skunkworks said:

Is a snick on the edge of the bat? Have deformable edge that shows the impact? Paint that flakes off or something.

Great for the first over, what about when you have knocked the edge a fair bit on the way to a double ton?

Ok, that wouldn’t be a problem the poms need worry about, but the rest of us…

Maybe the umpire can mark it when they change sides or something. I dunno and to be frank I have little interest but thought low tech might be a better way than what sounded like a nightmare of sensors and triangulation.

Skunkworks said:

Stealth said:

Skunkworks said:

Is a snick on the edge of the bat? Have deformable edge that shows the impact? Paint that flakes off or something.

Great for the first over, what about when you have knocked the edge a fair bit on the way to a double ton?

Ok, that wouldn’t be a problem the poms need worry about, but the rest of us…

Maybe the umpire can mark it when they change sides or something. I dunno and to be frank I have little interest but thought low tech might be a better way than what sounded like a nightmare of sensors and triangulation.

There’s plenty of time when the bowler is walking back to his mark to check and mark new marks on the bat.

flew = flex

i think they need to get rid of the tech, it was only done for the tv audiences anyway, and go back to just the decision of the on field umpires.

JudgeMental said:

i doubt any batsman would want a bat that had a non-integrity issue. handles have flew so putting electronics in them and routing wires would affect the performance. having sensors in voids within the blade, even if filled (filled with what and how does the filler’s characteristics differ from solid wood) would be something that the batsman would be wary of. remember the aluminium bats?

Yeah. the bat is an important part of the game. It would do to stuff about with it.

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

i doubt any batsman would want a bat that had a non-integrity issue. handles have flew so putting electronics in them and routing wires would affect the performance. having sensors in voids within the blade, even if filled (filled with what and how does the filler’s characteristics differ from solid wood) would be something that the batsman would be wary of. remember the aluminium bats?

Yeah. the bat is an important part of the game. It would do to stuff about with it.

wouldn’t

JudgeMental said:

i think they need to get rid of the tech, it was only done for the tv audiences anyway, and go back to just the decision of the on field umpires.

Nicola would have solved it in a flash.

JudgeMental said:

i think they need to get rid of the tech, it was only done for the tv audiences anyway, and go back to just the decision of the on field umpires.

A lot of people feel the same way. For one I don’t mind the tech but I don’t think the field umpire should be taken out of the game for tech.

In the past, any doubt went to the favour of the batsman.

roughbarked said:

In the past, any doubt went to the favour of the batsman.

This had the effect of making the bowlers try harder.

I’d think that any electrickery could be out electricked.

Very soon we will have Rumpire.

A robot umpire.

tauto said:

Very soon we will have Rumpire.

A robot umpire.

I doubt it. Fans could hack him from the grandstand.

Wristwatches have been tested in their cases for decades. the beats can be picked up and analysed in various positions and numerous watches can be tested by the same machine but all this would really take the interest out of the game.

In the past, snicko was never considered the sole basis of evidence and wasn’t used to evaluate the evidence. Was used only to see it from another angle. There was no way it alone could have been used as the basis for the decision in the past.

I can see it now. Portable laser scanners to check the bats at the end of each over. Hacking and counter-hacking, Crickileaks, fugitives, disgraced governments.

morrie said:

I can see it now. Portable laser scanners to check the bats at the end of each over. Hacking and counter-hacking, Crickileaks, fugitives, disgraced governments.

Yep.

Maybe we could just rule that if it is not bloody obvious that a decent knick has occurred, then it is not out. Similar to being bowled/run out, knicking the stumps with the ball is not out, you need to hit it hard enough to dislodge the bails.

Stealth said:

Maybe we could just rule that if it is not bloody obvious that a decent knick has occurred, then it is not out. Similar to being bowled/run out, knicking the stumps with the ball is not out, you need to hit it hard enough to dislodge the bails.

Yep. That was pretty much the way it always was. The decision had to be clear cut.

sibeen said:

Anyone got any ideas.

the only real way to solve the dilemma (apart from simply eliminating all DRS) is to use a series of proper high speed cameras. There is at times simply too much variance on a frame-by-frame basis to remove all doubt

I reckon they just go back to the old way, umpires only.. their decision is final

Arts said:

I reckon they just go back to the old way, umpires only.. their decision is final

Yeah but the delay while the data is being analised builds the tension for the viewers.

Arts said:

I reckon they just go back to the old way, umpires only.. their decision is final

I have no problem with the concept of using technology… but I would like to see the referral system shot down… My preference would be to have the technology available to the umpires only. Then, if there was something they wanted to query before making a decision they could call on the 3rd umpire. Having said that I would prefer the system to be used in a manner similar to how it is used in Rugby Union; where the umpire has to make a specific query and only that part of the decision is reviewed.

For instance, in a lbw decision the umpire could query of the ball was pitched in line and then make a decision from there.

diddly-squat said:

Arts said:

I reckon they just go back to the old way, umpires only.. their decision is final

I have no problem with the concept of using technology… but I would like to see the referral system shot down… My preference would be to have the technology available to the umpires only. Then, if there was something they wanted to query before making a decision they could call on the 3rd umpire. Having said that I would prefer the system to be used in a manner similar to how it is used in Rugby Union; where the umpire has to make a specific query and only that part of the decision is reviewed.

For instance, in a lbw decision the umpire could query of the ball was pitched in line and then make a decision from there.

but it’s a slippery slope.. the last thing I want is for it to become like RL where every part of every decision is reviewed because the onfield officials are too afraid to make a wrong decision.

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Anyone got any ideas.

the only real way to solve the dilemma (apart from simply eliminating all DRS) is to use a series of proper high speed cameras. There is at times simply too much variance on a frame-by-frame basis to remove all doubt

Of course in the case of a really close decision it will depend on which camera they look at first, thus collapsing the wave functions in all the other cameras.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Anyone got any ideas.

the only real way to solve the dilemma (apart from simply eliminating all DRS) is to use a series of proper high speed cameras. There is at times simply too much variance on a frame-by-frame basis to remove all doubt

Of course in the case of a really close decision it will depend on which camera they look at first, thus collapsing the wave functions in all the other cameras.

Exactly, and in one of the parallel universes Joe Root was given not out and went on to score a double century.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

the only real way to solve the dilemma (apart from simply eliminating all DRS) is to use a series of proper high speed cameras. There is at times simply too much variance on a frame-by-frame basis to remove all doubt

Of course in the case of a really close decision it will depend on which camera they look at first, thus collapsing the wave functions in all the other cameras.

Exactly, and in one of the parallel universes Joe Root was given not out and went on to score a double century.

I have checked a near-infinite number of parallel universes in our multiverse and none of them show that outcome…

Stealth said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Of course in the case of a really close decision it will depend on which camera they look at first, thus collapsing the wave functions in all the other cameras.

Exactly, and in one of the parallel universes Joe Root was given not out and went on to score a double century.

I have checked a near-infinite number of parallel universes in our multiverse and none of them show that outcome…

And proly ours is the only one wot plays cricket too.

If my name was Joe Root I’d be sorely tempted to change it.