The issue with No Balls and Dismissals these days

[Cabinet96]

Reckon umpires just don't want to call marginal no-balls but feel the need to check the legality of the delivery when a marginal one takes a wicket.

Don't think it's anything to do with them being anymore lazy or missing more than they used too.

The thing is they can't reverse it if they call a no ball and it isn't, because the batsmen may have changed his shot after hearing, "no ball". So I guess they feel it's better to only call no balls when they're sure and if there's a wicket then check. It's better to be safe than sorry.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No but my question is, why are umpires missing all these no balls the first time these days? I don't recall this happening before.

There is a precedent. Knight, Ward, Caddick & Cork dismissed from no-balls in Pakistant win.

Better to check and get it right, IMHO. In fact I can't see any arguments against the 3rd ump making all front-foot no-ball calls. How many times does a batsman really change his shot on the NB call?

 

[Cabinet96]

There is a precedent. Knight, Ward, Caddick & Cork dismissed from no-balls in Pakistant win.

Better to check and get it right, IMHO. In fact I can't see any arguments against the 3rd ump making all front-foot no-ball calls. How many times does a batsman really change his shot on the NB call?

Yeah practically never IMO. Perhaps if it's a spinner who's flighted one, but spinners rarely bowl no balls. If you can change you stroke to an 85mph delivery after hearing a no ball call, your pretty fast.

 

[Howe_zat]

Reckon umpires just don't want to call marginal no-balls but feel the need to check the legality of the delivery when a marginal one takes a wicket.

Don't think it's anything to do with them being anymore lazy or missing more than they used too.

I think you're right, and the worrying thing about this is that a bowler often needs to be told when he's bowling no-balls by a short distance. Otherwise he may be assuming his front foot is fine when it isn't, and so he only gets called out on it when it's important. Seems unfair on the bowler.

~~

For those who know anything about tennis, is it possible to use the bleepers they have for line calls?

 

[uvelocity]

For those who know anything about tennis, is it possible to use the bleepers they have for line calls?

I think there are a few issues. Can't place the sender/reciever on the boundary - too far away, and most grounds are not perfectly flat. Popping crease deteriorates, changes its level etc as it wears.

Can't imagine you could put any weight sensor under the ground. Only thing maybe something suspended above, but the heel could be off the ground but behind the line.

It's honestly not that hard, if umps can't handle it find some who can.

 

[Burgey]

Just do what they're doing now ffs.

 

[uvelocity]

I don't like what they are doing now, spoils the moment when they go upstairs for a flapping noball. Don't know why I'm happy with LBW's going upstairs, but just something about bowling someone, thats it get off no checking anything.

 

[Burgey]

Spoiling a moment is unfortunate but surely not as bad as potentially spoiling the result of a test match?

 

[uvelocity]

Yeah probably. Just seems wierd.

 

[Hurricane]

Spoiling a moment is unfortunate but surely not as bad as potentially spoiling the result of a test match?

I reckon that calling a batsman back for a no ball where the bowler has over stepped by an inch is more altering the outcome of the test match in an unnatural manner. Make the batsman use a referral to check.

I would have been absolutely gutted if Doug had've overstepped on the final wicket in Hobart and they did check.

Honesty Burgey if we are going to check the noball on each dismissal - lets go upstairs and use the third umpire and technology to double check every dismissal and appeal with hotspot snicko and the predictive path regardless of whether there is a referral because - "Spoiling a moment is unfortunate but surely not as bad as potentially spoiling the result of a test match?"

 

[Burgey]

I reckon that calling a batsman back for a no ball where the bowler has over stepped by an inch is more altering the outcome of the test match in an unnatural manner. Make the batsman use a referral to check.

I would have been absolutely gutted if Doug had've overstepped on the final wicket in Hobart and they did check.

Honesty Burgey if we are going to check the noball on each dismissal - lets go upstairs and use the third umpire and technology to double check every dismissal and appeal with hotspot snicko and the predictive path regardless of whether there is a referral because - "Spoiling a moment is unfortunate but surely not as bad as potentially spoiling the result of a test match?"

Why do you need to refer a dismissal when a bloke slaps it to point?

The crease doesn't move. FMD since they introduced the free hit in LO cricket hardly anyone over steps any more. If you don't want to check to see if a bloke's over stepped, then don't check to see if a bloke has half volleyed a catch. Both of them aren't out.

 

[uvelocity]

should check for chucking no balls too

But seriously, I think you could just flat out chuck one and get away with it.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Spoiling a moment is unfortunate but surely not as bad as potentially spoiling the result of a test match?

The moment takes a while to sink in, tbh.

 

[Burgey]

should check for chucking no balls too

But seriously, I think you could just flat out chuck one and get away with it.

You probably could ATM, at that level.

 

[Black_Warrior]

There is a precedent. Knight, Ward, Caddick & Cork dismissed from no-balls in Pakistant win.

Better to check and get it right, IMHO. In fact I can't see any arguments against the 3rd ump making all front-foot no-ball calls. How many times does a batsman really change his shot on the NB call?

I already mentioned that when I referred to the 2001 test with umpire David Shepherd.

 

[Spark]

I reckon that calling a batsman back for a no ball where the bowler has over stepped by an inch is more altering the outcome of the test match in an unnatural manner. Make the batsman use a referral to check.

I would have been absolutely gutted if Doug had've overstepped on the final wicket in Hobart and they did check.

Tough luck. Don't overstep, then. Not entirely sure where this "oh, but it's only a few inches over" - yeah, and? There's only a few inches between pitching on leg and pitching outside, but it's still the law that it has to pitch on leg, and it's the law that you need some part of the foot behind the line. Don't complain when they enforce it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

As every single other poster has suggested, just get the third ump to check the front foot every delivery. Can't be that hard.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Do you think technological tools will become par for the course in the near future as far as "Umpire Schools" are concerned? And what kind of effect might that have on developing natural judgement when you're subconsciously, or consciously aware, as an umpire, that there is always a more accepted option to fall back on?

 

[Hurricane]

Then enforce it on every ball - don't just get excited and say oh a wicket fell on that delivery so we better check it. If over stepping by a single inch creates an advantage then a bowler who is getting away with bowling them (because the umpire thinks they are too close to call) is probably creating extra pressure on the batsman which will lead to his downfall - so you should go upstairs after each ball. If the extra inch isn't really that important to the speed of the delivery then why get paranoid about the umpire missing the call on a wicket. Why discriminate against wicket taking deliveries when other deliveries are important too in the context of a dismissal if over stepping is a concern.

Edit @Spark

 

[Spark]

It's not about advantage or disadvantage.

Law 24 (No ball)

5. Fair delivery - the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(a) the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his stated mode of delivery.
(b) the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised
(i) on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in (a) above
and (ii) behind the popping crease.
If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

Why are people complaining so much when it's enforced? If Bracewell had overstepped on the ball that bowled Lyon it'd have been his own ****ing fault, don't whinge at the umpires for double-checking.