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.
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.
Armchair Expert
Guest
I was thinking the same thing about the umpires delaying no ball calls Cadfael, but maybe that's too simple, the ICC would probably prefer to reinvent the wheel.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
An alternative may be for the umpire to make his call after the ball has gone dead. This then does not put the batsman off. It won't get rid of missed calls unless the third umpire reviews every ball and this would just slow everything down. Sensors don't sound bad but it could get quite expensive.
Craig Swanson
Guest
One of my fellow bloggers on The CROWD is an ex umpire and he says it is not easy to concentrate on watching where a bowlers foot lands and then less than a second later re focus and be alert enough to adjudicate on something happening 22 metres away. I say take the onus away from the on field umpire and hand it to the third umpire. He has all the monitors and technology required to make a correct call every time.
Andy
Guest
How hard would it be to get a sensor on the line like in tennis with the net calls that just vibrates the umpires phone if it doesnt register a foot touching it, or even with a sensor strip in the back of the bowlers shoes? Obviously not necessarily in grade games (even if the technology is ridiculously simple and could be purchased from dick smith for 10 dollars or so) but in international games this is just such a simple fix.
Jack
Guest
Yeah absolutely. It's VERY difficult for an umpire to see a front foot no ball with the body of the bowler often obscuring that front foot landing. Take it out of their hands as it's not worth the effort on their part for something that is obvious to side-on views 99.9% of the time
Evil Steve
Guest
How indoor cricket does it then? I believe the idea there is that from the angle the umpire sits (above and behind the on-strike batsman) it's easier to determine quickly whether there's a gap between shoe and front line.
Dom
Guest
Yep, I can see no reason why the third ump can't be watching every front foot live, and alerting the ump after the fact if there was a no ball. The third umpire isn't doing anything else when a ball is being bowled. Sure it'd make their jobs a bit more tedious but currently that tedious job is being done by the guy who then has to look up and make crucial lbs decisions a split second later. Obviously some kind of technology picking up no balls would be ideal, but they haven't come up with anything yet (it's tricky on non-flat grounds apparently) so this seems an obvious solution now.
Big Steve
Guest
Some good ideas but bowler should not get benifit of the doubt. If the bowler is not obeying the laws of the game or pushing the boundaries the batsmen should get rewarded. Just back up 5 or 10cms. Agree with nanda should be a sensor they can use.
Nanda
Guest
My take. Change the no ball rule from the current - some part of the foot should be behind the line to - no part of the foot should touch the line. At then instal censors on the line to identify if the bowler had touched the line. Should solve some of the problem.