The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

It’s time to end the no-ball farce

Adam Voges put in another top score against New Zealand, but should have been out to a wrongly called "no ball". (AP Photo/Arnulfo Franco)
Editor
13th February, 2016
9

On the face of it, the calling of no-balls is hardly cricket’s biggest issue. But that doesn’t stop it being downright irritating.

And that’s not just speaking from the perspective of Doug Bracewell.

In particular, there are two no-ball-related procedures which have become increasingly annoying.

Umpires missing blatant no-balls, safe in the knowledge that the third umpire will have them covered should a wicket be taken on that delivery, is one. The second is the tedious ritual checking of the front foot after a wicket falls.

Although the first one is unfair to batting sides, who are robbed of runs which are rightly theirs, it’s the second of these pet hates which really gets me. The rhythm and flow of the game, already so damaged by the introduction of DRS, is almost completely lost whenever umpires go upstairs to check for a no-ball.

The thing is, it’s completely understandable.

We’re in an era where every decision an umpire makes is scrutinised under the gaze of super-slo-mo, frame-by-frame cameras. Sometimes it takes minutes, even with the aid of countless replays, to determine whether a delivery was legitimate or not, and yet it is expected of umpires to immediately make the correct call on the field.

For what it’s worth, I admired Richard Illingworth’s conviction and confidence in calling Bracewell’s wicket-taking delivery a no-ball almost as much as I disliked how horribly wrong he got it.

Advertisement

Illingworth, like every other umpire, is human. Yes, he is highly trained to do this job. But just like every other human, he is prone to making mistakes. That he makes them in a sport where every decision is scrutinised and, should it be found wanting, criticised, is hardly his fault.

Surely it’s time to help these umpires out.

Why not put the adjudication of no-balls solely in the hands of the third umpire? Provide them with a feed of the side-on cameras, and let them signal their on-field colleagues should a bowler overstep.

If there’s an occasion where it’s too close to call quickly, give the bowler the benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, a wicket falls, in which case go through the current process of meticulously looking for part of the bowler’s heel behind the line.

One can’t imagine it would slow down the flow of the game much, if at all, and it would allow the on-field umpires to concentrate on appeals and wides.

Yes, it would continue technology’s trend of becoming almost as important in the adjudication of cricket as the umpires themselves.

But if fans and pundits have access to the technology to criticise their decisions, it’s only fair that the umpires are armed with the same tools to prevent that criticism from occurring in the first place.

Advertisement
close