The issue with No Balls and Dismissals these days

[Hurricane]

It's not about advantage or disadvantage.



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.

Lets just have some consistency with the application of the law and I will be happy.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's not about advantage or disadvantage.



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.

No-one's complaining about when it IS enforced, people are more just irked by it not being enforced more consistently when all you need is to get the guy who sits there and does nothing apart from a couple run out calls each game to take a quick look at each delivery bowled.

EDIT: beaten by the 'cane

 

[Black_Warrior]

I think we are moving into a different direction here. My original point was about whether there are more instances these days of umpires double checking. Of course if its a no ball its a no ball..I don't care about any moment of the game.. If its a no ball, its not a legal delivery. Point is are umpires missing more of these no balls nowadays? Would it help if the responsibility was taken away from them and given to the third umpire upstairs?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I think we are moving into a different direction here. My original point was about whether there are more instances these days of umpires double checking. Of course if its a no ball its a no ball..I don't care about any moment of the game.. If its a no ball, its not a legal delivery. Point is are umpires missing more of these no balls nowadays? Would it help if the responsibility was taken away from them and given to the third umpire upstairs?

No, they're not, and yes it would.

 

[Black_Warrior]

No, they're not, and yes it would.

Cool. Can you list some instances when umpires double checked a no ball or missed a no ball in the 90s? Apart from the 2001 Pak-Eng test of course? Honest question because I can't recall this at all.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That's probably because they barely every did it (the no-ball check upon the fall of a wicket) previously, that's a recent development, so it wasn't ever looked into with this much depth apart from commentators occasionally picking up on it.

 

[andyc]

As I said in another thread, it should be left up to the third umpire, simply because it can have a huge effect on the game. If we're seeing this many close calls on dismissals, there's probably at least upwards of 3-4 close calls every innings on your average, left alone outside the off stump deliveries that the umpire obviously can't be bothered checking. That can add up to a good 10 run difference over the match, which can have a huge difference on a Test match, especially with the number of close Tests we've seen recently.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

I would've been gutted too but I would've been realistic about the fact that it would be a fair and just decision if he had overstepped. He would've gained an unfair advantage in that case.

Inch, foot, metre, whatever. It's a no-ball mate

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah, but if you're only double checking no-balls on dismissals, then that could definitely be seen as a slight disadvantage to the bowler, as he will have been bowling marginal no-balls which haven't been called, thus giving him a false impression of where his front foot is landing. It's got to be done across the board to be totally fair.

 

[SteveNZ]

I definitely see the point of 'why are they only being checked on wickets?'

However, in your instance, I would suggest all umpires are more than happy to tell you where your foot is landing. I know I always ask.

Could the third umpire check it every ball and call if necessary? Perhaps that's worth looking at, definitely. For a start, it gives the umpire at the bowler end more leeway to concentrate on what is happening at the other end, especially with quick bowlers. And it's very hard to see from behind (especially if a bowler sets the umpire back further) whether a foot is over, isn't over, has landed on the line and slid over, etc.

It wouldn't feel natural but then again I'm prepared to sacrifice that for correct decisions.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah, but if they can tell you accurately that you're marginally overstepping on occaision, then why on earth aren't they calling the no-balls anyway?

 

[SteveNZ]

It's a tough job at that level. They'll probably just go with the bowler if it's marginal? At least I hope they would.

I don't know, all I know is it's a hellishly tough job and they can do with all the help they get.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

What about some sort of sensor technology?

Sensor on the heal of the bowlers shoe, if the foot lands over the line the umpire gets a buzz.

Checking a video every delivery seems a bit silly.

 

[Vroomfondel]

What about some sort of sensor technology?

Sensor on the heal of the bowlers shoe, if the foot lands over the line the umpire gets a buzz.

Checking a video every delivery seems a bit silly.

Bit difficult I'd say. Whatever is on the shoe would have to be a passive device, something like an IR-reflective tape. And then you would need an IR source and sensor on the popping crease -- that's already a bit unwieldy (could have it in line with the stumps, perhaps). Around/over the wicket (different angles of feet), sliding feet etc. would complicate matters.

could alter the no-ball law to suit technology. Keep entire foot behind a line eg. and have a pressure sensor (or the IR contraption) on the line to catch the no-ball.

 

[Hurricane]

could alter the no-ball law to suit technology. Keep entire foot behind a line eg. and have a pressure sensor (or the IR contraption) on the line to catch the no-ball.

I have been thinking about this. In low grades of cricket it is not an issue. Most bowlers put their foot behind the line.

I think someones foot (size 10/11) with shoes on is probably around 12 inches. Many bowlers leave just an inch of their foot behind the line. So with this change they would have to leave all 12 inches behind the line plus a couple of inches for safety. So in likelihood this change would mean the bowler is bowling from 13 to 14 inches further back.

At 80 mph it will take about 1/100th of a second to travel 13 to 14 inches. So I doubt this would advantage the batsman too much.

 

[Daemon]

It's worrying because it probably means that in the past, umpires would just let it slide if it was marginal and didn't bother to check with the third umpire for no balls. It definitely doesn't mean umpires these days are missing the no balls more imo. The increase in the number of wickets off no-balls in the recent past coincides with this recent phenomenon of umpires checking with the third umpire for overstepping, which suggests that a fair few no-ball wickets have been given out in the past.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

awta.

 

[Black_Warrior]

It's worrying because it probably means that in the past, umpires would just let it slide if it was marginal and didn't bother to check with the third umpire for no balls. It definitely doesn't mean umpires these days are missing the no balls more imo. The increase in the number of wickets off no-balls in the recent past coincides with this recent phenomenon of umpires checking with the third umpire for overstepping, which suggests that a fair few no-ball wickets have been given out in the past.

That might very well be the case but in an age of replays and television, don't you think it would make the news more often the way it did during the 2001 Eng-Pak test?

 

[Dan]

That might very well be the case but in an age of replays and television, don't you think it would make the news more often the way it did during the 2001 Eng-Pak test?

Shane Warne being caught on the boundary for 99 after Vettori overstepped got dragged up on TV a couple of years ago, I'm sure.