*Official* England Tour of Sri Lanka 2018

[wpdavid]

That's a shame. I have no idea what England need to set, but you'd think somewhere well beyond 300 would be handy unless the pitch has really gone.

 

[Howe_zat]

Jarrod Kimber being the statistician on talksport is a) wonderful and b) something that makes me extremely smug, he once gave me a book for doing the stats for him on an article.

 

[Gnske]

Sri Lankan spinners and no balls, name a more iconic pair.

 

[wpdavid]

Older readers may remember when Moeen could hold a bat at this level.

 

[StephenZA]

We have modern technology that fortunately/unfortunately gets every small error from the umpires (and players) scrutinized. That does not mean that umpires of the past did not get it just as wrong, it's just we catch it now. I am sure that many a wicket has been previously taken off a no-ball that should not have been. It was only ever the absolutely obvious ones that got really called. Sandakan has not been stepping over by a foot. 3rd umpire could take more of a role though.

And the argument it stops the bowler from correction is nonsense, quite often when umpires see the bowler creeping, they have been known to mention it; and if you are a bowler that pushes the line, is it so very difficult for the teams to just have somebody on your team keeping an eye on where your front foot is landing. This is the bowlers problem, making it everybody elses is such a cop-out.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

And the argument it stops the bowler from correction is nonsense, quite often when umpires see the bowler creeping, they have been known to mention it; and if you are a bowler that pushes the line, is it so very difficult for the teams to just have somebody on your team keeping an eye on where your front foot is landing. This is the bowlers problem, making it everybody elses is such a cop-out.

And if the umpire is not watching, they can't tell whether the bowler is 'pushing the line', can they?

To argue that perhaps the fielding team should look out for it is to say that the fielders should do the umpires' job.

 

[Bijed]

We have modern technology that fortunately/unfortunately gets every small error from the umpires (and players) scrutinized. That does not mean that umpires of the past did not get it just as wrong, it's just we catch it now. I am sure that many a wicket has been previously taken off a no-ball that should not have been. It was only ever the absolutely obvious ones that got really called. Sandakan has not been stepping over by a foot. 3rd umpire could take more of a role though.

And the argument it stops the bowler from correction is nonsense, quite often when umpires see the bowler creeping, they have been known to mention it; and if you are a bowler that pushes the line, is it so very difficult for the teams to just have somebody on your team keeping an eye on where your front foot is landing. This is the bowlers problem, making it everybody elses is such a cop-out.

Wrt to this, if you're fielding close enough in to get a good look at the bowler's front foot, your ability to react to the ball being hit hard your way is probably going to be impaired by switching between looking at the bowling crease and focussing on the ball. Agree though that it's the bowler's problem if they're bowling no-balls, especially if they're a spinner.

That's not to say that I think so many getting missed is ok, though - as we've said on here before, why can't the third umpire call them every ball? Most of the time, it'll be obvious enough one way or the other to make a real-time call and if it's closer, they should have plenty of time between deliveries to check some frame-by-frame replays.

 

[Starfighter]

We have modern technology that fortunately/unfortunately gets every small error from the umpires (and players) scrutinized. That does not mean that umpires of the past did not get it just as wrong, it's just we catch it now. I am sure that many a wicket has been previously taken off a no-ball that should not have been. It was only ever the absolutely obvious ones that got really called. Sandakan has not been stepping over by a foot. 3rd umpire could take more of a role though.

Hmm, I've seen plenty much closer than a foot (under an inch) called in older footage. Might be anecdotal, but I think you're just asserting here.
Heck I just checked Aus vs WI at Adelaide in 96/97 when the West Indies did three in a a day. Bishop bowled two, one with his foot well covering the line (a very marginal call in fact) and the other just beyond it and the one from Walsh was more obvious, but only maybe a couple of inches. With one marginal and one close close that's hardly 'only ever absolutely obvious' and twenty in total were called in the innings, showing systematic attention whereas here we are dealing with potentially sixteen or so not being called in the space of only seven overs.

And the argument it stops the bowler from correction is nonsense, quite often when umpires see the bowler creeping, they have been known to mention it; and if you are a bowler that pushes the line, is it so very difficult for the teams to just have somebody on your team keeping an eye on where your front foot is landing. This is the bowlers problem, making it everybody elses is such a cop-out.

No it's not nonsense. Firstly, not every umpire is going to do so as you say, and I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule, secondly it isn't going to do anything for bowlers whose foot placement is quite irregular (e.g. Gabriel) with no real pattern to work off. Also if as many no-balls are being missed as has apparently occurred the umpire is unlikely to be in a position to give any sound judgement on a bowler's foot placement. They're missing something happening nearly half the time.
Teammates will rarely be able to do it because they need to field (I can't wait in your world for someone to get a crack on the head from a drive because they were watching the bowler's foot and couldn't dodge in time) and are often (especially in international where batsmen are much more powerful) a good distance from the crease at a poor angle making watching difficult. You're basically saying that teams with no ball prone bowlers should always have a shortish midoff/on. No bowler has eyes on the bottom of their shoes, heck last week I had an argument with a guy who insisted he was placing his foot about 8" behind where he actually was. The judgement of front foot placement and the calling of no balls is part of the umpire's job. It's time to stop with the 'coulda-woulda-shoulda' which clearly is not very good in practice and work to find a much better solution.

 

[StephenZA]

What we talking about is that while the umpire should be have tried to watch the no-ball, the assumption that they got it right all the time is foolish. Now we know better, and from all intensive purposes it appears it was foolish to think that umpires could watch the no-ball line and always get it right, while also expecting them to watch what was happening on the other end. So umpires miss no-balls, particularly close on the line no-balls, real shocker! Either we remove the replays to show umpire faults or we rethink how it is done. Get 3rd umpire involved and/or accept that if you are pushing the line without umpire being sure he will check no balls using the technology when you get a wicket. Thus responsibility needs to fall on the players as knowing full well technology will be used. The game has changed, and blaming the umpires for what is clearly the players fault is stupid imo.

And now I read about how it might stop player concentration fielding at mid off (or whatever) to glance and check his team mates foot placement. But for the umpire at 22 yards who is trying to make, edge, lbw etc decisions its easy?

It was the umpires job 50 years ago because nobody else could make that decision, and I am sure they made mistakes. Now we don't want the mistakes we have the technology and get it right.

 

[Starfighter]

And to just address it's the 'it's the bowler's problem' argument. Yes it is, but it takes the attention of the umpires to make the bowler aware of this problem. As I said no-one had eyes on the bottom of their shoes, a bowler cannot tell reasonably tell they are overstepping until they are made aware of it, and it is the umpire's job to do so, not anyone else's. Problems are hard to address until their nature and extent is discovered.

 

[Howe_zat]

Sandakan lost a wicket due to bowling no balls and then kept bowling them anyway until he lost another.

The first one you could talk about no warning, but the second?

 

[Starfighter]

Sandakan lost a wicket due to bowling no balls and then kept bowling them anyway until he lost another.

Actually read my comment. Sandakan was clearly not aware of the extent of the problem because the umpire was not doing their job. It might be easy to attribute something to a one-off if you are not aware it is systematic.

 

[StephenZA]

This is not Sandakan first rodeo... he has been known to trend close to the line. It is quite often specific bowlers that get problems with wickets off no balls.

 

[Starfighter]

This is not Sandakan first rodeo... he has been known to trend close to the line. It is quite often specific bowlers that get problems with wickets off no balls.

And once again no-bowler has eyes on the bottom of their shoes. That some bowlers are more prone than others does nothing to abrogate the umpiring failures.

 

[the big bambino]

Administrators and adjudicators begin to undermine themselves when they fail to apply the rules or a measured punishment to breaches of them. There isn't a problem. Just an instruction to tell umpires to do their job. I can guess why umpires are becoming risk averse. No one wants to call a marginal no ball that resulted in a wicket only to be embarrassed by a replay showing the call was wrong. However not calling them is being picked up anyway. The rules are clear. Your job as an ump is to enforce them. Just call them. If you make an error then you face the consequences. If they're missing as many as people say then the umpires should be facing those consequences for their failings in this match anyway.

 

[StephenZA]

Umpires are becoming risk averse because they are being scrutinized for any tiny mistake, because we are now capable of doing so. Now we force the umpires to call no-balls that are not no-balls? And get criticized for that or do we actually adjust the rules to make more sense and reduce error. And the players have as much responsibility for that.

One of the best things about DRS is that the players have the choice now to back up their claim when they belive an umpire makes a mistake. It is amazing how often they actually turn out to be wrong, and it is also nice that the few incorrect decisions are corrected.

 

[the big bambino]

Umpires are becoming risk averse because they are being scrutinized for any tiny mistake, because we are now capable of doing so. Now we force the umpires to call no-balls that are not no-balls? And get criticized for that or do we actually adjust the rules to make more sense and reduce error. And the players have as much responsibility for that.

Are umpires meant to call no balls?

Yes.

Then do it. No problem really.

 

[StephenZA]

Are umpires meant to call no balls?

Yes.

Then do it. No problem really.

But you have to ask why were umpires meant to call no-balls? Where they getting it right? And can it be done better? Saying this is the way it is and this is the way it must be 'because' makes no sense to me. Adapt and change as we must.

 

[the big bambino]

But you have to ask why were umpires meant to call no-balls? Where they getting it right? And can it be done better? Saying this is the way it is and this is the way it must be 'because' makes no sense to me. Adapt and change as we must.

No I don't. All I have to understand is that it's their job. They're not doing it. What you are talking about is another issue. Is there a better way? There maybe. Suggest it and get it done. Until then umpires should just do their job.

 

[Starfighter]

Umpires are becoming risk averse because they are being scrutinized for any tiny mistake, because we are now capable of doing so. Now we force the umpires to call no-balls that are not no-balls? And get criticized for that or do we actually adjust the rules to make more sense and reduce error. And the players have as much responsibility for that.

Holy straw-man, I don't even know where to begin with this one. And your only suggestion that actually goes to addressing the problem is getting the third umpire involved 'somehow'. And what rules need adjustment? The only thing which is happening is the umpires are not doing their job in enforcing the simple unambiguous rule that exists.

But you have to ask why were umpires meant to call no-balls? Where they getting it right? And can it be done better? Saying this is the way it is and this is the way it must be 'because' makes no sense to me. Adapt and change as we must.

The umpires are meant to call no-balls because they are the officials under law 2.1 that are empowered to enforce law 21.5. There is obviously scant evidence but balance of probablities seems to suggest why are getting it less right than in the relatively recent past. It can be done better but rhetorical flourishes is not the correct way. Perhaps try to address what is happening in reality rather than projecting yourself onto the situation.