The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Should the no-ball rule be changed?

Peter Siddle may have lost some pace, but that could still be of benefit. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
Roar Rookie
19th July, 2013
15

Legend has it that the great Sir Donald Bradman was asked what one thing he would change about the modern game, he replied without falter, “remove the front-foot no ball”.

Cricket is a game where there are many sporting and personality attributes on show and players both tall, short, rotund and thin are all able to play a specific role.

It is a sport of gentlemen with a history dating back into the 1700s.

It is a game of despair, hope, fulfilment and pain, where a game can hinge on the smallest of miscalculations.

It is a game where a team can grasp the pain of defeat from the jaws of victory, and a victory from the jaws of defeat.

It is also a game of contrast, where the inexplicable happens on a regular basis.

Last night, we saw the inexplicable happen yet again. A bowler stepping over a thin white line that does not move.

The bowler knows it is there, the batsman knows it is there. Even the little boy watching from Perth, Karachi, Cape Town or York knows the line is there.

Advertisement

Thus, I have two questions that I would like to debate with my fellow Roarers:

1) Why overstep the mark?
2) Why is it there anyway?

I suppose that number one is rather self-explanatory: it is there to provide a clear and definite line for the bowler to step on in the process of a delivery.

In a game that changes with a millimetre here or there, why would you put yourself in the position that you could overstep the crease?

As we have seen with Peter Siddle now on a few occasions, this misstep of barely a centimetre cost Australia a vital wicket (even as an Australian, I would argue that it was deserved – pitch it up lads!).

Surely logic would dictate that you measure your run up to include being far back enough from the line to avoid such a potential catastrophe.

The argument, of course, lies in searching for that millimetre of effort and space to change a game.

Advertisement

The contemporary professional attitude dictates that you must always push the laws to their fullest extent.

This is not specifically aimed towards cricket, of course, as open-side flankers in rugby union are always deemed to be toeing the line as the easiest example.

But surely in a game of inches where often nothing is taken or given in the heat of battle, it would be wise to ensure that you’re not giving away second chances to anyone.

Somewhat fortunately for Australia, the batsman in question only added a small proportion of runs to his total.

If that were a batsman of the class of Alastair Cook, Michael Clarke, Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Steve Waugh etc chances are your game is now over.

Number two is a slightly more interesting topic. The front-foot no ball came to prominence I believe in the 1962-63 season (I’m trusting my research skills here as I was born in 1989!).

Previously, bowlers were required to ensure their foot was behind the bowling crease in the delivery of the ball.

Advertisement

The law was changed so that the bowler was required to not overstep the popping crease.

A paramount reason to change the legalities of a delivery were to stop the bowler from dragging his foot along the crease and to eliminate the very tall bowler’s advantage of being able to over-step the popping crease.

Perhaps in the days of uncovered and interesting wickets and the lack of the crash helmet in many cases, this was a fair enough call.

In contemporary cricket, the batsman has all the padding they could ask for plus some.

They now also have a wide range of bats and smaller boundaries to hit for. There are restrictions about what a bowler can and can’t bowl (body line bad, lack of bouncers also bad – chin music is good for the soul!).

So why eliminate an advantage a bowler has in height when bowling?

On some of the roads that are prepared for batsman to gorge on, why can’t the bowler have something in his favour?

Advertisement

While I certainly don’t envisage any change coming from the law-makers of our great game, it should provide many a good argument over the next few days!

close