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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
jrod
Guest
+1 I'm sick of seeing Australian bowlers bowl right on the limit of the front foot. Take half a step back and you would almost never bowl a no-ball on the front foot.
gav
Guest
The reason the back foot no ball was eradicated was because of bowlers dragging their back foot well past the stumps before delivering the ball. Famously Colin Cowdrey once said "If I went on the front foot I would be stepping on his toes", he was refering to Gordon Rorke. It gave bowlers a distinct advantage as they could deliver the ball from only 2 yards closer. If you look at the scoreboards from the past, the number of no-balls were significantly lower. I agree with your statement if the bowler's are able to bowl closer to the batsmen then why not ? It is a skill and if bowlers can perfect it then they should use it.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Mitchell Johnson once said that they overstep in training. You train like you play. Idiots.
doubledutch
Roar Pro
No real problem with the current system. If the bowler is stupid enough to cross the line then... well they are just plain stupid. Should Siddle do it again he would most likely get dropped for again... stupidity.
eagleJack
Guest
Huh? I think you've missed the point. The question is why can an umpire ask for a no ball review if he has doubt, yet he cannot go upstairs for any other decision (apart from stumpings and run outs)? Surely if the umpires are going to use technology then they should he able to use it for all decisions. Even if he had doubt over the Broad caught behind there was nothing he could do about it. He couldn't ask for assistance. Let umpires use technology to the full extent or don't use it at all. The idea of bringing it in was to get rid of howlers. Yet we still see them regularly.
Jayvan Collins
Roar Pro
The law pertaining to no balls in cricket states that the "Umpire must be satisfied". That means to me if the umpire is not satisfied that some part of the was behind the line when the foot was first grounded they should call it a no ball. To go up stairs on a dismissal to check is evidence that they were not satisfied. If umpries were to call it based on the statement in the laws of the game, then I can guarantee bowlers would make it very obvious their foot was behind the line. Just look at what happens in T20 and where most bowlers who push the line in tests put their foot in the shorter format. That said there is one glaring issue here.... The media would crucify an umpire that called a no ball when it was marginal by 1cm and that would 'bring the game into disrepute' or 'harm the image of the game' or whatever mumbo jumbo the ICC laws/player/umpire/waste of time committee would choose to use as their reasoning.
Jayden
Guest
I remember back a few years ago with rep and the like. The matter isnt moving your mark back a bit etc; doing so seemed to completely kill off all momentum and my run in seemed un-natural Id rather becomfortable and bowl one no ball a game than be uncomfortable and bowl poorly as a result
Martyn50
Roar Rookie
The line is there for a purpose like any other sport.
Mickh
Guest
Seriously, how hard is it for a bowler to keep his foot on or behind the line? Very lazy bowling that cost Australia a vital wicket, again.
James
Guest
umpire reviewed bairstow because he thought it was maybe a no ball, he didnt review broads because he had no doubt it wasnt out. if the umpire is in doubt he checks if hes not in doubt (even if he is wrong) he doesnt check. its not an interesting question at all.
Charlie Mackay
Guest
Your friend raised a very good point and this is also something that greatly annoys me (and unfortunately forgot to include within my article). I honestly think that if a no ball is not called immediately then it should be left alone. The DRS is starting to really annoy me. There are still cases where potentially 50 50 calls are still made and could influence the outcome. I would not be sad to see the DRS go all together, along with all the other technological gizmos!
Macca
Guest
Chui - Have you seen how much a bowlers foot can slide late in the test on a crumbling wicket?
Macca
Guest
A work colleague offered an interesting question on this issue this morning - why is it that on every dismissal they review if the bowlers foot was ever so slightly over the line (despite the umpire not calling it) but such an obvious knick as Broads can't be reviewed because Australia used their reviews.
colvin
Guest
Look, everyone knows what the rule is, play to it.
Chui
Guest
I'd like to see the rule changed whereby any part of the front foot must be on the line only, even after sliding. To me it would be easier for the umpire to see a strip of pitch between the crease and the back of a boot, than what they are being asked to judge now.