If I may step up on the soapbox, the biggest blight in the game of Test cricket currently is this practice of umpires holding potentially outgoing batsmen on the field while they check for a no-ball.
To clarify, it’s not the overturning of wickets found to be taken with a no-ball that gets my goat, rather the hole that the umpires are digging for themselves every time they send a decision upstairs.
I’ve never had any sympathy for bowlers overstepping, as a now-former batsman myself, and I completely agree that this is a flow-on of the chronic number of no-balls that bowlers send down at training.
When my former club teammates showed no inkling or interest at training to fix the problem after it was pointed out, I used to make a point of standing in the umpire’s position and calling no-balls so that no-one was in any doubt who was cocking up.
And it is a cock-up, too. You bowlers, if I can generalise, go to great lengths to step out or even measure your run-ups, but the no-ball issue remains.
If you can’t manage the small detail of keeping some part of your front foot behind the popping crease as you’re required to, then taking wickets is something you won’t need to concern yourself with.
So, for every bowler out there, at whatever level you’re playing: get it bloody right.
Four dismissals were knocked back during this First Test in Brisbane, and all of them were no-balls, but the question remains why the umpires are not calling the no-balls as they see them.
This for me is the issue. The umpires are obviously seeing enough to decide to send the delivery upstairs when a dismissal is on the line. So why don’t they just call the no-ball as they see it?
The question that most commonly comes up is “How many batsmen were out on no-balls before DRS?” But I come at this from a different direction.
How many no-balls are being let go by umpires who only make the decision to call them if a wicket appears to have been taken?
Take any of the examples from this Test and think about it. If instead of chopping onto his stumps, Hashim Alma had smashed the ball to the cover boundary, umpire Asad Rauf would’ve stood there signalling a four, but knowing in his mind that he’s missed a no-ball.
It becomes a double standard. Essentially, the umpires are relying on the DRS to correct the calls they don’t have the confidence to make live. Some no-balls will only be called if a wicket falls, otherwise they will be knowingly ignored.
Just think about that last point for a bit.
International cricket umpires are not calling things as they see them in play. If it’s inexcusable for bowlers to overstep in the first place – and it is – then surely it’s also inexcusable for international umpires to not call things as they see them.
For me, there is only one solution, and that’s the remove no-ball review completely.
I understand the difficulties umpires face in seeing where both feet land, and then what happens up at the batsman’s end (as Channel Nine went to lengths to illustrate in the Tea break yesterday). Surely, though, being able to see and adjudicate all that occurs in play is part of reaching the highest form of the game as an umpire.
Remove the review, and leave the no-ball calls to the umpires in the middle.
Yes, some no-balls will be missed, and some calls might even be wrong, but that is the human element of umpiring. There would still be very few occasions where a batsman has later been shown to have been dismissed from a no-ball (Shane Warne holing out on 99 more than ten years ago against New Zealand in Perth remains the most obvious recent example).
More importantly, we’d be backing the top umpires to call what they see.
Anyway, the Test…
I’d reckon Australia head to Adelaide now with a fair chunk of the momentum out of this first Test. It’s a fair conclusion that losing all of Saturday to rain cost both sides a result, but both were also able to show enough to assure us this will be a cracking series.
I had always thought it would come down to the respective batting line-ups in this Test. Despite claims that South Africa were sporting the best attack ever, or whatever bowling coach Allan Donald labelled them, I had a hunch that both pace attacks were in similar form and might cancel each other out.
And I still can’t shake the feeling that Graeme Smith buggered up by taking four quicks into the Test, then winning the toss and batting.
The known quantities of Hashim Amla and Jaques Kallis set up the match for South Africa, but their bowlers couldn’t seal the deal after having Australia 3/40.
From there, the batting of Ed Cowan, Mike Hussey, and particularly Michael Clarke took the game away and put it in the position we were left with yesterday, where even if the chance was the faintest of faint, only Australia could’ve won.
Just on Clarke, the four he put back over the bowler’s head to bring up his 250 is an early contender for the shot of the summer, and was all the more impressive for the fact the bowler was Dale Steyn.
With all that in mind, a draw was probably a fair result, and the second Test in Adelaide starting on November 22 is now even more heavily anticipated than it already was.
Clive Robertson
Guest
Make no balls ten runs! Or just sack the persistent offenders. Have the commentators pan the bowler instead of feeling sorry for them. This should make the no ball a threatended species.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
The checking for no balls policy was implemented after the Pakistan players complained that the umpires was not picking up their no balls and lost thousands from the bookies....
Neuen
Roar Rookie
If I were to be stumped I would like them to look at bowlers stride as well as the keeper not stretching over the wickets before a shot was played. Also I would like them to check the leg side behind square and no ball the fielding team every time I play the switch hit if they have more than to fielders in that position. I would actually demand it as doing the switch the field placing becomes illegal. Then coming to the current front foot point of a bowler bowling no balls. I notice some say move the marker back 6 inches? It is not that simple as a run-up length can only ever be a rough guide because when a bowler is running in the length of his steps will vary based on a number of different things like wind, a slight up or downhill, surface if its wet etc etc. That will influence his stride and sometimes they just want to bowl to fast and that happens as well. I can tell you with Patterson he no balled cause he was fired up which also will influence your stride. So no its not about just moving a marker 6 inches back. Maybe making the run up better or giving a bowler access to the field and practice time on it some time before a test match will see him adapt. Otherwise he will adapt in the game and what you saw in the last game is going to happen all over where some of those factors are involved. I would like if they bring the free hit into all forms of cricket. Would definitely be a positive in test cricket.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
I have absolutely no problem with the technology being used as long as the correct result is achieved full stop. The whole idea of DRS was the remove the "clanger" ie the Warnie....The Andrew Symonds in Sydney against India etc etc. I also quite like the build up for the checking of the no ball as well. Creates a bit of theatre!!!! Keep it coming i reckon
I am DRS
Guest
Your "some no balls will be missed and some calls might be wrong" comment doesn't at all address what I'm talking about. The specific scenario I allude to is not one of missing no balls (ala Shane Warne dismissal) but is the situation where an umpire incorrectly calls a legitimate delivery a no ball, which in turn deprives the bowler and fielding team a legitimate wicket. (Cameron Rose also raised this btw). This outcome is completely unacceptable (seemingly Cameron agrees with me on this) and is no different to a batsman incorrectly being given not out when they are actually out. My scenario is also inevitable if the umpires "call it as they see it" without the assistance of referrals as you so desperately covet. This was avoided in the pre-referral days by the fact that umpires called no balls only if they were certain it was in fact a no ball, as to avoid the above scenario. Anything in the grey area of doubt they would not call, but instead warn the bowler they were getting too close. This is explains why in "30 years of watching cricket" legitimate balls have so rarely been called no balls. My position Brett simply comes down to this; I'd sooner see decisions on dismissals made correctly, and if that means umpires use technology to catch what they should've called initially, then so be it. Luckily, it seems the administrators of the game agree with me.
dasilva
Roar Guru
How is that the problem? There are no balls that are clear cut for the umpires and there are no balls that are borderline and hte umpire wants to check out the borderline ones when the wicket is taken The umpire gave out 33 no balls and majority of them weren't DRS assisted call THe umpries aren't shirking at calling no balls when there is no wicket as proven by the amount of no balls they have given throughout the match Really you still haven't demonstrated why it is a problem to check out borderline no balls when a wicket is taken just because no potential borderline no balls are checked when there is no wicket. Checking out no balls in some situation cause an overall less mistakes made in the game than removing the DRs for no balls for all situation who is getting robbed or cheated because the no balls aren't check on deliveries that don't cause a wicket. The batsman not getting cheated. Yes sure the if the umpire got the no ball right the batsman would have got an extra run and delivery but the chances of getting the decision right or wrong doesn't change with or without the DRS system for checking for no balls when a wicket is taking. Removing the DRS will not increase the chance of the umpire detecting no balls during normal play. Here's the choice here, ask majroity of batsman, would you rather make sure you never get dismissed due to the no ball but there will be a few no balls during the match that won't be detected. OR there is a chance that you will be dismissed due to a no ball and there will be chance that there will be no balls not detected throughout the match It's a no brainer to me. This all or nothing mindset is just completely mind boggling It's like saying that because this drug cures cancer for 20% of people taking the medication but since the curative rate isn't 100% no one should be allowed to used the drug. As long as technology offers a net benefit, than we should used this. This whole mindset of all or nothing is simply illogical
Heff
Guest
As a side note to this, I got a great insight into a bowler's mentality when I saw Brett Lee bowling to Jonathon Brown and Andrew McCulloch on the cricket show for a bit of fun. Here's Lee, on national TV, sending down thunderbolts to 2 footballers (McCulloch barely knew which end of the bat to hold) and he's overstepping by, oh, about a metre. I'm all for putting an end to no ball reviews but it's hard to defend the bowler when you see something like that....
Maggie
Guest
I agree.. Which is why the back foot no-ball rule should be re-introduced with suitable safeguards to stop dragging of the back foot (as I argue near the end of this thread). The umpire then has time to look up to the other end to be able to judge edges and LBWs.
Heff
Guest
The biggest issue I have with this no ball stuff is the potential change of course a match can take due to the overturning of a decision in this way. Momentum plays a massive role in cricket of any format at any level. Many times so far we've seen a wicket fall clearly via an otherwise indisputable method (eg. Caught or clean bowled) and the fielding team begin celebrating immediately because in the flow of the game they are absolutely sure they've got their man. Let's remember, this is not available at schoolboy, grade and in some cases first class cricket so players are conditioned to that being the final verdict. The team gathers around celebrating and momentum is theirs (to varying degrees depending on the situation). Suddenly, the batsman is called back and not only have the lost momentum, the batsman now has a new advantage. A boost of confidence. A feeling of "today must be my day". In a game so reliant on confidence and delivering under pressure, I feel this is an unfair advantage to gain when it's the batsman who made a mistake. Yes, I know the bowler made a mistake as well but for mine, the price to the fielding side is too hefty. Momentum is not affected anywhere near as much when the call is made straight away and everyone knows whether he stays or goes.
Heff
Guest
The biggest issue I have with this no ball stuff is the potential change of course a match can take due to this debacle. M
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Another point on the umpirese positioning. The umpire generally stand about 2 metres back from the stumps as this gives them a better perception of bounce. From this position it would be verry difficult to see the front foot. There is a trade off here, best position for adjudicating LBW's is probably the worst position for adjudicating no-balls.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Brett, As I said in my first comment on this article the umpire has a lot to be looking at during a delivery. It is most important that he is in the best position to make decisions based on what he sees at the batsmans end. If there is a choice to be made for the umpire as to whether to look closely for no-balls or to look closely for edges and LBW's then i want the umpire concentrating on the edges and LBW's.
Rhys
Guest
The solution is simple. A GPS tracking device located in the heel of the fast bowler's front foot boot. It will also aid said fast bowler to navigate between fine leg and third man when he's not bowling.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Big Mac, as an ex-bowler to your ex-batsman, I can honestly tell you that I bowled one no ball in my entire career. And it was practically on purpose. Granted I never played at an elite level, nor bowled at express pace, but the point remains, if you don't want to bowl a no ball, it's pretty damn easy. I exaggerated where my front front landed to ensure I never infringed. It's worth it not to give a run away. Or worse, a wicket. (Oh, and I never scored a hundred, but it gives me great pleasure to bring up your ton here!)
Brett McKay
Expert
Maggie, I wouldn't want to alter the front foot rule like you've suggested, but if we need to have a groundsman running out at every break in play for a touch-up, then let's do that. By all means, let's do what can be done to make it easier for umpires to make the decision in the first place, but let's not allow the second bite at the cherry that we have currently..
Brett McKay
Expert
IaDRS, not only have I considered that very scenario, I wrote this about it only two pars below where you lifted that last quote from: "Yes, some no-balls will be missed, and some calls might even be wrong, but that is the human element of umpiring. There would still be very few occasions where a batsman has later been shown to have been dismissed from a no-ball (Shane Warne holing out on 99 more than ten years ago against New Zealand in Perth remains the most obvious recent example). More importantly, we’d be backing the top umpires to call what they see." Roar regular, FormerOpenSide above wondered about this too: "how many times have you seen a no-ball called that was in fact legit? I think I have seen a handful – perhaps 5 which were all line ball in any event – in 30 years watching cricket" Yes, the reality is that will happen because of the human element, but I have no issue that at all. It had, afterall, served Test cricket well for all but the last 2 years of the game's 135+ year history. Again, as I've said repeatedly today, this isn't about the technology used, but rather the umpires using that technology to catch what they should've called initially. There's another side to this, too, and it could be that the best umpires in the game now - the ones that can't rely on technology and have to make decisions as they see them - are actually umpiring in first class cricket. Evidently, the further up you go, the less decisions you have to make.
Brett McKay
Expert
Sheek, I did, and I welcome them to my 'no T20Is' bandwagon!! If I may name-drop, I'm heading to a presser with those very three greats of the game tomorrow!! ;-)
Brett McKay
Expert
Nick I referenced that very example directly above your post (it was Ryan Harris, and I thought it was in Perth, but will stand corrected on the venue). I agree with you, it's the umpire's job to be in a position to see that..
Maggie
Guest
I largely agree with what you are saying Brett. The high incidence of what turn out to be no-balls when reviewed after a 'wicket' falls must mean there is an even higher number not being called and not being reviewed because a wicket is not at stake. To me this shows that the umpires can't administer the rule as it currently is written - and that makes it a bad rule. At a minimum think the rule should be changed so that it is only a no ball if the foot is totally over the line. The umps seem to be able to call those because it is much easier to judge when there is space between the foot and the line. But my preference is to go back to the back foot rule but with amendments to overcome the cribbed advantage of dragging of the back foot which led to the change in the rules in the 1960s. For example, it could be ruled to be a no-ball if the back foot after landing behind the bowling line is then dragged over the line - with the third ump and video technology being used to assist the on-field umpire to call the drag. Or, if the back foot rule was still thought to give very tall bowlers an unfair advantage. move the bowling crease back behind the stumps. In other words, find a way to make the back foot rule work, not spoil two of the past joys of a cricket spectator - the huge hit off an early call of 'no-ball' as the back foot rule allows, and the sight of stumps flying - only to be overturned on review which now happens with disappointing regularity under the front foot rule.
Nick
Roar Guru
@ Brett: I agree. Just to send us down memory lane, in the adelaide test last year, one of the umpires (forgive me, I forgot his name) was completely unable to see if the foot of Siddle (or maybe Hilfenhaus) was behind the line and each wicket he took was referred to the third umpire. It created the slighty farcical scenario of if the umpire can't see where the foot is being planted, why is he not checking everyball, instead of just the wicket balls? Obviously, because that would be a very cumbersome and time-consuming exercise. Scrap the no-ball review unless a batsman specifically requests it as part of a DRS.