***Official*** Australia in New Zealand 2016

[SteveNZ]

I didn't even think it was up for debate but since apparently it is....can anyone confirm for me what I assumed to be the case, which is that under the current rules an umpire cannot reverse a front-foot no-ball call and give a batsman out?

Without knowing the rules (admittedly I am rubbish on them) why would there be a rule to change a batsman to not out, but not to change it to out? Either it's Illingworth's **** up for not asking, or it's the rules fault for having a double standard.

There's not a batsman in the world who would say 'I heard the call and played a shot (or not in this case) as a result'. They'd be laughed off. Everyone can stand assuredly that there isn't a batsman in the world who picks it up early enough and has the sort of incredible hearing to know the sound was 'no ball' and it came from the umpire.

 

[thierry henry]

Without knowing the rules (admittedly I am rubbish on them) why would there be a rule to change a batsman to not out, but not to change it to out? Either it's Illingworth's **** up for not asking, or it's the rules fault for having a double standard.

There's not a batsman in the world who would say 'I heard the call and played a shot (or not in this case) as a result'. They'd be laughed off. Everyone can stand assuredly that there isn't a batsman in the world who picks it up early enough and has the sort of incredible hearing to know the sound was 'no ball' and it came from the umpire.

I don't disagree, but AFAIK that is indeed exactly the reason and that has always been the rule

 

[thierry henry]

Because FWIW I am absolutely 100% sure that Illingworth would've reviewed that if he could

 

[Debris]

The real solution here is to tell the TV station not to replay the no-ball. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[SteveNZ]

There were 7 no ball calls today and you'd imagine a lot more that might have been reviewable if the umpire wanted to be certain.

I think it's either automate all no ball calls (if possible) or deal with the possibility of errors, really.

But only one of those calls (we presume, I suppose there could have been more we didn't see) were a dismissal. We can all live with a borderline no ball call that costs a run, not a wicket.

The thing is with dealing with the possibility of errors is I can absolutely do that. All of us who played club cricket for any period of time certainly got used to it. But when the technology is there, can't we expect correct decision making and solid procedure? And common sense?

I just feel like the Mitch Marsh thing, if you're neutral (I'm not) could have been a shot in the arm for common sense. Something happened, we weren't sure, we weren't 100% procedure was followed in terms of an appeal, time for the ball to be dead etc but be damned we got the right result. That could have happened here. I don't know the rules but Illingworth had to know that was close. No problem with him calling the no ball, as I said it's a hard job. But then he says **** that felt close, and this is a massive moment in terms of a dismissal. It's stumps, so time wise no issue. I want to get every decision right ultimately, even if what I did in real time was wrong. Hey 3rd umpire, just have a real quick check. If you're absolutely unsure, then my decision stays - but if it's clearly not a no ball, then let's get it right. Why can't that happen? Because let me assure you, Voges heard no call.

 

[SteveNZ]

Because FWIW I am absolutely 100% sure that Illingworth would've reviewed that if he could

That absolutely might be true. So then my issue is with the procedure makers. Zero sense to be able to overturn an out decision because it's not out, but not a not out that is actually out.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Could it possibly have been an issue of theoretically Voges being distracted by the umpire's call of no ball and hence even if the call was reversed then theoretically it would have been unfair to give him out?

 

[thierry henry]

That absolutely might be true. So then my issue is with the procedure makers. Zero sense to be able to overturn an out decision because it's not out, but not a not out that is actually out.

While I agree with you that it's almost impossible to really adjust to a no-ball call, it is that possibility which is why the rules are as they are. I don't really have a problem with it, it's a matter of abstract logic over likely reality and (I can tell you're very much the type to disagree with this) the rules of a sport generally have to follow some sort of inflexible logic, otherwise things get chaotic.

It's really nothing to do with review procedures or DRS or any of that. It's about "batsmen can respond to no-balls" being a basic tenet in the rules of cricket. So that's what needs to be changed to change this.

 

[Flem274*]

this no ball would be less of a thing if NZ could bat without ross, kane and watling having to save them

 

[SteveNZ]

Could it possibly have been an issue of theoretically Voges being distracted by the umpire's call of no ball and hence even if the call was reversed then theoretically it would have been unfair to give him out?

Not to me. But only my opinion.

The problem TH and I think we've run into it before, is that as you say you seem like you're an intelligent, worldly-based logic sort of guy, whereas I'm not - I'm more of a cricket/sport logic guy. I don't see the requirement for absolute stringent policy when you're able to make a decision based on common sense. I feel like that should form part of the law book.

So where I'm coming from, is that I see a wrong that could've been righted in about 10 seconds. No hold up to play, no basis for argument.

And yeah if batsmen can respond to no-balls forms part of that logic, then okay I'll just put down my keyboard, bash it over my head a few times and accept the reality of dumb policy. Sort of like I have when I ask my mrs if she's sweet with me going out for a round of golf, she says absolutely not then spends the next 4 hours away from my company.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But only one of those calls (we presume, I suppose there could have been more we didn't see) were a dismissal. We can all live with a borderline no ball call that costs a run, not a wicket.

I just feel like if you implemented the possibility to review a no ball call to see if it was really a no ball, you'd have to do it every time the call was made. It just seems silly to me to have the possibility there, call a no ball (almost always a marginal thing) and then say "we could check and be sure, but who gives a **** because it's only one run?". I mean, what if the test match is decided by one run? What about in ODI and t20 cricket where a no ball is also a highly influential free hit and extra ball for the innings? I get what you're saying but you make a review system to perfect the decision making process, not just to remove this one specific type of mistake that almost never happens.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Although it's unlikely that Voges could've responded to the no-ball call, it makes more sense if you imagine Bracewell was a spinner.

 

[thierry henry]

Not to me. But only my opinion.

The problem TH and I think we've run into it before, is that as you say you seem like you're an intelligent, worldly-based logic sort of guy, whereas I'm not - I'm more of a cricket/sport logic guy. I don't see the requirement for absolute stringent policy when you're able to make a decision based on common sense. I feel like that should form part of the law book.

So where I'm coming from, is that I see a wrong that could've been righted in about 10 seconds. No hold up to play, no basis for argument.

And yeah if batsmen can respond to no-balls forms part of that logic, then okay I'll just put down my keyboard, bash it over my head a few times and accept the reality of dumb policy. Sort of like I have when I ask my mrs if she's sweet with me going out for a round of golf, she says absolutely not then spends the next 4 hours away from my company.

I'm very much thinking in terms of sporting logic here but I can't really think of many other examples where the rulebook says "but you can overrule this if common sense suggests something else".

I absolutely get where you're coming from but in this particular instance I'm not sure how you can implement it consistently. What happens when the bowler really is slow enough (a very slow part-time spinner with a bit of a delayed release in his action maybe?) and the umpire makes a lightning quick no-ball call and the batsman gets out, and it looks like maaaaaybe the batsman heard the call? Do we want umpires then adjudicating on "could the batsman have heard the call"? Do we want umpires making their best guess on whether, even if the batsman *could* have heard the call, they actually changed their shot?

 

[SteveNZ]

I just feel like if you implemented the possibility to review a no ball call to see if it was really a no ball, you'd have to do it every time the call was made. It just seems silly to me to have the possibility there, call a no ball (almost always a marginal thing) and then say "we could check and be sure, but who gives a **** because it's only one run?". I mean, what if the test match is decided by one run? What about in ODI and t20 cricket where a no ball is also a highly influential free hit and extra ball for the innings? I get what you're saying but you make a review system to perfect the decision making process, not just to remove this one specific type of mistake that almost never happens.

Yeah, as I said with TH that's where people with my lack of logic in regards to policy and arbitration differ. It's already happening. Wickets with no balls not called, or close no balls, are being looked at. Wickets with no balls called aren't. That's double standards, and more costly than the double standard of reviewing potential wickets but not every borderline no-ball. So the review system is bent.

I do see the argument that possible boundaries ie foots on ropes, inside/outside boundary shots etc are reviewed with one possible run to be saved, so why wouldn't no balls? So basically if we weren't checking front foots at all on replay or we were doing it all the time, I'm totally cool with it. But that's not the case.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm very much thinking in terms of sporting logic here but I can't really think of many other examples where the rulebook says "but you can overrule this if common sense suggests something else".

I absolutely get where you're coming from but in this particular instance I'm not sure how you can implement it consistently. What happens when the bowler really is slow enough (a very slow part-time spinner with a bit of a delayed release in his action maybe?) and the umpire makes a lightning quick no-ball call and the batsman gets out, and it looks like maaaaaybe the batsman heard the call? Do we want umpires then adjudicating on "could the batsman have heard the call"? Do we want umpires making their best guess on whether, even if the batsman *could* have heard the call, they actually changed their shot?

Fair point. I guess it's just another spiteful rant from an old bowler who thinks we get paid no heed. It's just the hypocrisy of the current implementation that gets me.

Have to say, it's bloody nice to have a reasoned debate with a couple of people without a 'stuff you, I'm right' undertone. Bloody good.

 

[thierry henry]

Fair point. I guess it's just another spiteful rant from an old bowler who thinks we get paid no heed. It's just the hypocrisy of the current implementation that gets me.

Have to say, it's bloody nice to have a reasoned debate with a couple of people without a 'stuff you, I'm right' undertone. Bloody good.

haha cheers. I swear I go to great lengths here to be as conciliatory as possible even when strongly disagreeing with someone, yet still get typecast as a wanker by people much more prone to ad hominems than myself.

Sometimes it bothers me that for every discussion there seems to be an unspoken "CricketWeb right answer" and regardless of how well you try to make your point you're a wanker if you go against it...but eh I'm probably just being a wanker again.

 

[thierry henry]

....and tbh, I'm trying to imagine a bowler who is actually slow enough for my scenario to be realistic and I'm not convinced it's possible. But I think it's the fact that that COULD happen which determines the rules. Perhaps you have a point that that's silly.

 

[SteveNZ]

....and tbh, I'm trying to imagine a bowler who is actually slow enough for my scenario to be realistic and I'm not convinced it's possible. But I think it's the fact that that COULD happen which determines the rules. Perhaps you have a point that that's silly.

I played a few bowlers in UK league cricket who absolutely you could have made a decision based on, they were that loopy. But I recall Nathan Lyon I think it was, bowling at least one or two no-balls in a Big Bash game recently. There were no big heaves, or adjustments made that I saw. And he's operating at 90km at best. Me personally, I think you could absolutely go with a rule that doesn't allow batsmen the liberty of believing they could have adjusted to a no ball call. And I truly believe it would have universal buy-in from players. But I don't know, because I'm not a top-level batsman.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Managed to get along to the ground for about half an hour today (between work and picking up the sprog from child care). One nice observation was that a number of the Australian back room staff, plus Nathan Lyon were sitting on chairs placed on the main path round the Basin and Lyon seemed happy to sign autographs for all the kiddies. Seriously, how many grounds would this happen at?

Also, the turnout for a Friday was great. And despite recent press that Kiwi crowds are the most feral, Lyon was happy to be sitting out of the safety of the dressing room, and not just on the outfield beyond the boundary rope.

 

[Gnske]

Also, the turnout for a Friday was great. And despite recent press that Kiwi crowds are the most feral,

If they don't throw bottles at the players they're fine.