The practice of using video replays to check for a possible no ball after a batsman has been dismissed has become a blight on Test cricket.
If it hasn’t done so already, the use of video replays to check this aspect of dismissals will soon lead to more muted celebrations among both fielders and spectators.
Most cricket spectators would cite the atmosphere inside a stadium as one of the major reasons for returning year after year to watch cricket. Those people who saw the following moments live at the ground will undoubtedly still recall the crowd’s immediate reaction:
– MCG Boxing Day Test of 1981, Australia versus West Indies: Dennis Lillee bowls Viv Richards on the final ball of the day’s play to leave the mighty West Indies at 4 for 10.
– MCG Boxing Day Test of 1982, Australia versus England: With Australia only needing three runs to win the match and The Ashes, Jeff Thomson is caught in the slips by Geoff Miller to hand victory to England.
– SCG Test of January 2009, Australia versus South Africa: In the final session of the fifth day, South Africa has held on gamely to try and force a draw. However, with less than a dozen balls remaining to be bowled, Mitch Johnson wins the match for Australia by bowling Graeme Smith with an almost unplayable delivery.
For each of the above moments, the reaction of both players and spectators was spontaneous and unqualified – either elation or despair. Obviously some of the impact would have been lost if all eyes at the ground had first turned to the umpire to see if he was going to ask for video assistance to determine where the bowler’s front foot had landed.
Unfortunately, the current regulations will detract from some of the big moments in future matches.
As more and more batsmen are reprieved by umpires second-guessing themselves on no ball decisions, players and spectators will learn to temper their reactions to dismissals. After all, nobody will want to look like a fool by prematurely celebrating a dismissal.
This is not what cricket needs if it is to attract and retain spectators. The umpire’s original decision (that the delivery was legitimate) should not be reviewed, thereby maximising the immediate reaction to a dismissal.
I disagree with the argument that cricket is duty bound to use the available technology to police the no ball law.
Instead, I argue that there are some laws in all ball sports that do not need to be scrutinised as closely as other laws. In other words, there are laws where occasional minor transgressions make no difference to the fabric of the game. The following list provides examples of such laws from a variety of sports:
Soccer: The winger crosses the ball towards the goal, but had the ball rolled a few centimetres over the sideline before it was crossed?
Australian Rules: Did the player in possession run a step beyond 15 metres before bouncing the ball?
Cricket: Did one of the outfielders move a few steps to his left or right as the bowler was running in to bowl the ball?
One-Day Cricket: When the ball was bowled, was the foot of one of the infielders slightly outside of the fielding restriction circle?
Rugby Union: Was a long backline pass directed forward by a matter of one or two degrees?
Netball: Did the player in possession touch the court slightly outside of the permitted zone for that player?
The scenarios listed above require match officials to make an immediate decision according to the laws of the relevant game. They do this to the best of their ability, and the game is allowed to continue.
Although errors are bound to occur occasionally, the overall integrity of the games is maintained because players know that the laws are being policed.
Consequently, the use of video replays to assist match officials with these decisions would make no discernible difference to the players’ actions. Instead, video replays would only serve to interrupt the flow of the games and reduce the atmosphere generated by a crowd of excited spectators.
Returning to cricket and the no-ball law, the event of interest to all spectators is how the batsman deals with a delivery, not where the bowler’s front foot lands. The positioning of the bowler’s foot is a only a precursor to the main event, and therefore occasional umpiring errors are unimportant when compared to, say, errors made on caught-behind or stumping decisions.
It should be noted that, at the point of delivery, the bowler is about 17 metres away from the batsman. As such, the batsman cannot blame his dismissal on the bowler overstepping the line by a few centimetres (even eight centimetres over a distance of 17 metres equates to less than half of one per cent).
Should the practice of using video replays to check no-ball decisions be scrapped, cricket regulators will inevitably receive criticism when future replays of dismissals show the bowler overstepping the line.
The best way to counter such criticism is to state up front that it is unnecessary to police every law of the game with the same vigour. Therefore, in the interests of the game as a spectacle, the original decision will be allowed to stand.
I am certain that this rationale will be accepted by the vast majority of cricket players and fans.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
They do check no balls and call it. But sometimes because the umpires is human they will miss one or two. So if that one or two he missed takes a wicket it can be fixed and give some disgruntle cricket supporters less things to moan about when they lose.
Crimpy
Guest
I am getting sick of sports that only check condition when something occurs. Last time I read the cricket book (From End to End :-)), any delivery is a no ball if a bowler oversteps, not just the ones he gets a wicket on. So as far as I am concerned, the third umpire should check all delivieries for a no ball or none of the deliveries for a no ball. Other sports annoy me too, rugby league - we only check knock ons in the last play before a try. Motorsport - It is ok to drive outside the circuit when required unless you overtake someone.
Jeepers
Roar Rookie
I agree that we should not fall into the trap of using technology just because it is available. A good example comes from Australian Rules football. The technology now exists to accurately determine how far the player with the ball runs between each bounce of the ball, but the game would be foolish to go down that path. Aussie Rules fans of a certain vintage would remember Phil Manassa's amazing goal in the 1977 Grand Final replay, where he bounced the ball four times as he ran along the wing. I would hate to see similar goals in the future being referred to a video umpire to check whether the player ran half a metre too far between the second and third bounce.
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
If a batsman just nicks one he's out. If a bowler just no balls, he's messed up too, so he shouldn't get the reward of a wicket. If you're not playing within the limits of the rules you're essentially cheating. We've got the technology to get it right, so we should utilise it. If they'd had this rule Shane Warne would have a deserved test ton.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
What is wrong for making sure? The time it takes for the batsman to reach the boundary and it takes to check for it. So nothing is really wasted they just look if the umpire might have missed it. But they still call no balls don't they
gttommo
Roar Rookie
Rumbustious I kind of agree with you but on the other hand I am also glad that they check this, it is incredibly annoying when a batsmen (or two) is given out off a no-ball that wasn't picked up and the team ends up losing the test by a small margin. Maybe they should try a different technology whereby there is an instant pick up of a no-ball, a sensor of some sort on the bowler's side that can tell if he oversteps the line and gives a beep like they do in tennis.
Kev
Guest
I have a hatred of umpires who refer a runout decision to the third umpire even though they're nodding their head showing that they are confident the batsman is out as they signal for the referral. If you're sure the batsman is out then call it. Don't hide behind a review system. If not, and you're going to refer everything then what's the point of having an umpire then? You may as well have Joe Nobody who stands there as a gopher referring every decision.
Tejón volante
Guest
No, there's no difficulty. Either the umpire called it or he didn't.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
The trouble with ignoring the "pedantry of checking for a slight no-ball infringement" is that it then becomes very difficult to decide by how much the foot needs to be over before it becomes a non pedantic issue. I mean really, that's why the line is there - to provide guidance and a reference point for the umpires to make a decision. Is there really any difference if we say, "you know what, only on bail got knocked off, so you can continue batting"? You are either playing within the rules or outside. I have no problem with decisions being checked for accuracy.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Rumbustious I agree with your sentiments on the muted excitement that no-ball checking causes. But I think it must be be done. I would like to see the batsman walk off and only turn around if a red light flashes to say it was a no ball. A bit more subtle than having the batsman stand around perhaps.
Tejón volante
Guest
@Johnno and @Nick – the author isn't asking for the DRS to be scrapped, just the pedantry of checking for a slight no-ball infringement after a dismissal. The bowler gains no advantage from this. If he oversteps by anything more than a fraction he'll be called by the on-field umpire and the wicket won't stand – something the crowd can pick up almost immediately. You're confusing the intent of the law with the letter of the law. We achieve the intent by following the author's advice and getting rid of this silly review. As for match-fixing, getting rid of this would make almost no difference and the slight difference it would make would actually make spot-fixing harder. If a bowler agrees to bowl a no-ball on a particular delivery, the current system means it's much more likely to be picked up. However, if we just rely on the on-field umpire he needs to be well over the line to be sure of being called, making it easier to spot the intent. Remember how far over the line Mohammad Amir was? That was used as evidence that he did it deliberately.
Red Kev
Guest
The issue is that the umpires no longer try their best, they refer everything. Too much time is wasted. Go and watch a couple of series from the early 2000s and watch Daryl Hair rule on run outs. I can think of only one that he got wrong and it was genuinely a case of one frame difference on the replay that showed his error. The rest he was bang on the money. Umpires now refer decisions when the bails are broken when the batsman is level with the stumps. It is a joke. Honestly, either install a robotic umpire or go back to human umpiring. I don’t believe Hot Spot, the snickometer can easily be fooled – trust the bloody umpire (include a line like in the rugby laws that states the umpire is the sole arbiter of truth, fact, time and space on the cricket field – then there are no mistakes because the umpire defines reality).
Bearfax
Guest
If the technology is there, use it. Otherwise you have a huge television audience seeing errors that are not seen by the umpires, causing much frustration and annoyance. television land is now a better umpiring process than umpires, so give the umpires and the players the right to seek TV assistance. I agree though that the number of challenges a team has should be limited otherwise everything would be challenged and it would bring the game to a stand still. Give the umpires though unlimited open right to seek TV assistance if they arent sure. Slows the game a little but at least you're more likely to avoid 'howlers'
Nick
Guest
Same could be applied to every rule in crickets book. LBW Just outside the line? Hardly dramatic. Did the catch carry? Well it's obviously close so that's enough. Run out? Well it's probably on the line and surely that's so close that it's basically in so don't worry about it Makes no sense. Get the decision right or at least do your best to
Johnno
Guest
People's never went to the game for the umpire's theatrics, sorry Billy Bowden , and Dickie Bird lol. The umpire or ref, should be seen and not heard, let the game flow, and you don't want the umps or ref making howler decisions. To much money is at stake, players careers etc, and corporate investment, and tv deals, so it's essential decisions are as accurate as possible. Heck Ricky Ponting would of got a century on debut, and Justin Langer's career was saved by a bad LBW desciion that went in his favour he went on too make a good score, . Also by having no balls not be checked, you open the way for sports match fixing. Exotic bets, and also bowlers and umpires being paid to cheat, thus a fast bowler bowling at 150 clicks per hour can overstep the mark to get that extra bit of bounce and pace. A pandora's box of problems if the writer of the article want's no-ball decisions to be left to the umpires.