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

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I don't see that we need a laser tripwire for the front foot, but FMD just have the third umpire look on all dismissals be they upheld or no balls. I'm sure they can take time out from their game of Solitaire.

They would have to check every ball and take the no ball call away from the on field umpire entirely.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, but an incorrect call of a no ball isn't fair on the batsman as they may have played the ball differently in response to the no ball call. That's the problem. Overruling the no ball call couldn't mean the batsman should necessarily out.

Hence, an electronic solution for international games must be pursued. And us club cricket plebs just have to suck it up. Personally, I've never had a problem with checking the front foot no ball line and then seeing the outcome of the ball. Whether my assessment is up to scratch is a different issue. Checking the back foot no ball is much harder and as soon as you start to combine these tasks, it certainly gets tricky.

Yep take no balls out of the hands of the on field umpires completely. Will probably have the added benefit of improving lbw decision making if the on field umpires don't have to look up at the last second.

 

[SteveNZ]

They would have to check every ball and take the no ball call away from the on field umpire entirely.

I hear what you're saying and why you're saying it, but it's only the anoraks and the Ian Taylors of this world that would insist we have to check every ball because we've decided it's smart to check possible dismissals. And it's already happening because we go upstairs on possible no-balls when they haven't been called anyway. So I disagree.

And to say batsmen may have played a no ball differently if it was called is complete horse excrement. Ask any batsmen if they've ever hoofed at a ball with gay abandon because they knew it was a no ball.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yep take no balls out of the hands of the on field umpires completely. Will probably have the added benefit of improving lbw decision making if the on field umpires don't have to look up at the last second.

Hey if it can be done re the no ball thing and it works, let's do it. It doesn't make the role of the umpire obsolete. I just don't know that it can be done. Because yeah, it may well improve decision making at the other end.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Have only just had the opportunity to see the highlights from the last session now...what a hopeless decision that one was??? Clearly going for Bradman's averages

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I don't see that we need a laser tripwire for the front foot, but FMD just have the third umpire look on all dismissals be they upheld or no balls. I'm sure they can take time out from their game of Solitaire.

In future cricket if a bowler oversteps a sinkhole opens up and they're transported back to the changing room.

 

[SteveNZ]

In future cricket if a bowler oversteps a sinkhole opens up and they're transported back to the changing room.

Most plausible one I've heard so far.

 

[straw man]

Laser system + overstep = goodbye toes
imo

 

[kiwiviktor81]

We just need the stumps and bails at the non-striker's end to light up when the bowler oversteps. Then the batsman gets maximum advance notice of the no ball and can adjust the shot accordingly.

Also it means the commentators have a chance to refer to the "Zinger KFC bails" or whatever they are.

Batsmen win, bowlers win, spectators win, sponsors win. Expect the idea to catch on in 25 years or so.

 

[SteveNZ]

Too expensive.

 

[thierry henry]

I saw some people raving on the Veitchy page (Kiwis will understand) about how the no-ball should have been "reviewed" and I lol'd, but I'm a bit stunned that the wise people of CW are suggesting it.

Illingworth called the no-ball when he saw it (as has been done in cricket since the dawn of the no-ball) which was prior to the dismissal. Having made his call while the ball was in flight he can't undo it. That's not just a quirk of the rules or the review system, it's basic officiating logic- you can't reverse a call if the ball was in play when the call was made and a player has had an opportunity (however unrealistic) to respond to that call.

Kinda stunned tbh that people seem to think Illingworth has done something wrong beyond making a howler of a no-ball call. Bad as the call was, there's nothing wrong with him calling a no-ball if he sees one, and realistically there's no way of undoing that once it happens.

 

[straw man]

I was willing mccullum to review it tbh.

 

[thierry henry]

I mean...you can't, right? Am I losing the plot here?

 

[SteveNZ]

If we're basing it on the fact that the player had an opportunity to respond to the no ball call, then I understand why cricket is where it's at with technology. Again, there is not a batsman in the world that can stand with his (if it's a her, I could see it) hand on heart and say they've reacted to a no ball from anyone above medium pace. And very few for spinners. You're just not attuned to it. Noise can be anything. What if you reacted to a no call, only for it to be a crowd distraction? It does not happen.

Sorry, that explanation ain't cutting it either.

If you've got a rule for an out decision, you have it for a not out decision. Or again, we favour batsmen. We're only ever taking dismissals off bowlers and never giving the right for them to receive them. More horse excrement. Realisti cally, he could have checked upstairs the same way he would/could have if he'd called it a fair ball but knew it was close. Ala Hobart 2011.

Actually hold on - that DID happen in Hobart 2011. Lyon was bowled, they went upstairs. The right decision was made, we all accepted it. So why the **** didn't it happen today? EDIT - sorry, too worked up and realised that's a different situation to today. But it shouldn't be.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And to say batsmen may have played a no ball differently if it was called is complete horse excrement. Ask any batsmen if they've ever hoofed at a ball with gay abandon because they knew it was a no ball.

Yeah. I agree, but you can't rule this out hypothetically, especially with respect to spinners. Even I've tried to slog a spinner when a no ball has been called. Even with seamers, I wouldn't be able to comment on whether a decent batsman can react to a no ball call given my own paucity of talent.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I mean...you can't, right? Am I losing the plot here?

You're right, and in this case a rule where all dismissals are checked for a front foot no ball wouldnt' prevent the error, it would need to be a rule where all no balls are double checked for accuracy. Which would seem to somewhat defeat the point of calling them at all, or at least relegate the umpire's job to calling "close to a no ball" rather than no ball. Which you'd imagine would result in... a lot of calls.

I'm personally fine with automating no ball calls if it's at all possible, though I don't actually know if it is. In this case it's just a bad umpiring decision for which there really isn't a review protocol in place. The only person who could call for a review here is the umpire to double check their own decision, and they'd end up doing it all the time. 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'd also add that as far as I remember this has never happened before. So it's not really a commonplace concern. And there's some merit to the batsman response thing though personally I doubt that's a realistic factor at the professional level.

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

 

[Shady Slim]

it's easier to change your shot by chambering for say a cover drive and then deciding to shoulder arms than it is to chamber for a cover drive then go to belt the **** out of the ball, i'd say if any reaction is feasibly possible it's an arm shouldering.

 

[thierry henry]

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?

 

[Flametree]

The only one I'm sure I've seen is batsmen making a late decision to try to flick one over the slips; being on the back foot gives a little more time and if you were about to push to point or shoulder arms it's not such a big change in motion to throw the bat at a rising ball at the last minute. If all he managed was an edge and the no-ball subsequently got overturned, it would not be right for him to be reviewed and given out.

 

[thierry henry]

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?

....and that in addition to this, a captain cannot review a front-foot no-ball that has been called?

I think Faaip may have answered me above