straw man
Hall of Fame Member
True, I could see that working as a rule.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2017
- Thread starter Blocky
- Start date
Radio commentary team (including Saffer Manthorp) 100% sure that it should have been a no-ball, their explanation is either (1) 3rd ump made a mistake about application of the law, or (2) there is another camera angle which creates doubt, e.g. angle from behind the bowler, in which case they suggest that the 3rd ump has made a mistake by not basing the decision on the side on freeze frame.
IMHO, in the linked image in Straw Man's post above, foot is in the air.
Edit, explanation of (1), the law says ""bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised [...] behind the popping crease" and the commentators think 3rd ump thought "I can't tell if raised part of the foot is on the line or behind, so I'm not going to overule the on-field ump" but the radio commentators (and me) think the correct logic should have been "I can't tell if the raised part of the foot is behind the line, so it's a no-ball".
Last edited:
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
I actually think the no ball call was a good decision. The front of the foot was well planted, and the heel like a millimetre in front of the line. So surely as the foot planted into the turf it dragged and the heel would have been behind at first touch.
The decision does highlight how totally impossible it is for an on-field umpire to accurately call a close no ball, though.
The decision does highlight how totally impossible it is for an on-field umpire to accurately call a close no ball, though.
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
Richardson pretty lucky he took that in good humour! hahaha
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
My partner's brothers have come to visit and they're using our TV for video games at the moment - what's this about?
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
The umpires had gloves brought out due to the cold weather, and the commentators started saying would the third umpire have gloves too. Then Richardson says well he's got a blindfold. Cut to Tucker right as he says it, and Tucker just bursts out in laughter, volume on his tv obviously up! Covers up his ears, then his eyes. Was hilarious.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lol. awkward.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The interpretation is supposed to be that part of the foot is clearly behind the line when the foot touches. it wasn't clear at all in that freeze-frame. Poor decision.
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
I'd say it's impossible to tell with this one, unless you had the super slow-mo camera on the front foot. But each to their own.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Would be a beautiful thing.