For most, the no-ball rule is black and white. It’s clear as day what a bowler must do to ensure each ball is legal. However, Richard Illingworth’s call has resonated around the cricketing world.
Well-known scribes and players alike have questionws the validity of the ruling, while others have called for the umpire to be stood down.
But before the knee-jerk reactions, and we start reverting back to the back-foot rule or cease to use a professional and experienced umpire, let’s look at some contributing factors at play when Illingworth made the call.
First of all, the incident occurred towards the end of the day’s play. The shadows caused by the stumps and the bowler’s back leg were cast across the crease, which will have made sighting the crease difficult. Added to this, Doug Bracewell opens his hips upon delivering, which results in his front leg being on an angle in front of the back leg. This combination of factors could have resulted in Illingworth believing the Kiwi had overstepped the line.
At the end of each session, curators rush out onto the ground to re-paint the lines to make them clearer for the umpires. However, being at the end of the day, the crease where Bracewell landed had faded with the constant wear and tear.
Consider the difficulty in making a no-ball call when a bowler is bowling in white boots, lands on a faded white line, mixed with some shadows and slightly blindsided by his back leg.
Would a blue painted line make things easier? What about a black line?
While these considerations don’t excuse one of the biggest umpiring mistakes in recent memory, they do provide additional commentary on Illingworth’s ability to make the correct call.
The current no-ball rule still works. Yes, Illingworth made a follow-up mistake on the final day, however two mistakes don’t cancel out all the correct calls that are made across all levels of cricket every year.
Cricket is a traditional game steeped in traditional rules and values. However, let’s consider the benefits of not discriminating against a bright blue, or a vibrant yellow. Will this make it easier for umpires to see if any part of the line is visible behind the heel? Most definitely.
Richard Illingworth played Test cricket and a lot of first-class cricket. Mix this experience as a cricketer with a lot of umpiring all over the world, and you have a talented and important member of the ICC Umpiring panel.
He made a mistake, however there were factors at play that influenced his decision and they need to be considered before any call of changing the no-ball rule comes close to a vote.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
If you can get the ball onto the batsmen that fraction of a second quicker it potentially can make a slight difference. My aim was always to get the foot half over the line, so I was pretty much half in front and half behind leaving a bit of room for error. Some bowlers bowl every ball within a centimetre of the line. I think that's just asking for trouble. As is the age old practice of continually bowling no balls in practice but saying "I won't in a match". That being said, yes, as you say, it's a feel thing. If I moved my run up back half a pace it would generally result in me either striding out a bit more or feeling off as I got close and either throwing in a little skip step or pulling out so you are hitting the delivery stride about the place where you feel right. Which is a subconscious thing from years of playing. If I didn't measure a run up at all, but just starting running in from somewhere back there, I'd probably end up with my front foot in a similar place, just not necessarily with the proper, smooth run-up prior to that.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I have umpired bowlers where their back leg really obscures the front foot and no matter where you stand you can't get a clear view, and calling no-balls ends up reverting to a bit of guess-work. You still want to try and get it as close to right as possible, don't want to let this guy get away with bowling lots of no balls, so you try and determine through other things where his front foot is coming down and take a best guess. It's the only way to do it. Fortunately for me when this situation has come up I've never had TV camera's replaying the front foot close up to show if I've got it wrong.
Jerry
Guest
Yeah, I've always wondered why bowlers bother with pushing the envelope so much. Even for express pace bowlers, I doubt 9 inches or so would make that much difference*, so why not bowl with the front foot behind the crease? That said, for current bowlers who've bowled thousands of deliveries, moving their marker a bit back may not help that much as they're so used to the rhythm and timing of their action as they pass the umpire & stumps. *that's what she said.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
There is no rule to say your foot needs to be on the crease at all. There is zero excuse for a no-ball. Land behind the line, what difference will a few centimetres make.
Jerry
Guest
It's not really about Voges for me, as you say - they had enough chances to get him out. Poor call or not, they let him get 200 further runs. It's just that there's simply no good reason why this mistake needs to be made. It's basically a no-brainer that the 3rd umpire should check front foot no-balls. They've got more than enough time in between deliveries, they've got the means to do a better job than the ump in the middle and removing this responsibility from the ump in the middle would allow them to do their core job better.
chucked
Guest
rubbish Jules.. Temper Tantram Marsh WAS OUT how simple is it?. In one dryers and T20 we see a replay of the Front Foot to confirm if No ball or not...apply same logic IF the Ump has overruled a CLEAR wicket.. That's clear as in caught at 2nd slip but given not out due to no ball. dead simple
Don Freo
Guest
No...Mitch was given out earlier in the year off a no ball. They checked for the no ball, we could all see clearly that it was a no ball but the third umpire decided it was too close to call. People decided, then, that Mitch couldn't bat. Poor Marshy...and poor Kiwis. Stuff happens. Umps call them when they see them and they check dismissals. Vogsey's was an error that is rarely made. NZ giving up and not getting him out is not a reason to change a rule or a process. Just try harder, Kiwis.
bryan
Roar Rookie
Lot being made over what appears to be a world first. Umpires make mistakes... lets just go with that. Gives us something to talk about after the game.
Bobbo7
Guest
Jules but the right decision was made. Marsh was out and the technology ensured he was out. The Marsh decision shows why the third umpire should be used - to get the right decision
Bobbo7
Guest
Good comment. I would also add that Illingworth also missed some no balls. If he can't see he should not have call it. If it is hard to see die to shadows, paint or whatever, then that is more reason to check with the a third umpire. In fact I have no idea how he was able to call something he clearly did not see. In my view the umpires should check the no ball if they think there was one when there is a wicket.
Jerry
Guest
See above re Warner. They probably would have, cause they replayed basically every ball. Also, I love how your idea of 'just deserts' is "One Aussie didn't manage to get away with getting out so it's justice that a second Aussie did".
Jules
Guest
That's not the point. Would the local network have shown the replay if it was a kiwi batsman? If not then the replays should never be used out or not
Jerry
Guest
It's not really about Voges specifically, it's just that there's really no good reason why the ump in the middle needs to be making that call anymore. There's a 3rd umpire not doing anything with the time and ability to check every ball without disrupting the flow of the game. If bowlers are regularly over-stepping they should be called on it and adjust their run ups.
Jerry
Guest
Except that was out too.
Jules
Guest
Seems the kiwis have forgotten all about the Mitchell Marsh dismissal. Seems like just deserts to me
Mike from tari
Guest
The umpire made an error, so what, down through the years they have always made errors but it balances up in the long run, leave it as it is but ban the replays until the next over has started, who is to say what would have been the outcome another player might have scored a ton, storm in a teacup really.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
The error was just an error but it highlights the bigger issue. Umpires are reluctant to call no balls, or perhaps just not able to accurately.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
It happened. It was an error. The Kiwis had plenty of time to get Voges out after this but couldn't. Much of the hoo haa has come from across the ditch complaining that Australia benefited again from an umpire's error. Of course chasing up Gould after the replay appeared on the big screen was fine. Had it been any other side than Australia to benfit from the call, hardly anything would have been made of it.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
If I hadn't read the headline I could have sworn you were FOR a change in the rule. You make a pretty compelling case as to why we ask too much of umpires. In any case, the current rule does not work, clearly. For the reasons we saw recently. For the fact that umpires miss too many no balls. And for the ridiculous situation we have where a bowler is only told if he is crossing the line when he takes a wicket. When you say: "two mistakes don’t cancel out all the correct calls that are made across all levels of cricket every year." That's a very broad call that ignores reality. There are no stats on missed no-balls but anecdotal evidence suggests Test umpires miss them regularly. We just don't see the vision. Eg this from the most recent Ashes: "UK broadcaster Sky Sports showed Australian quick Mitchell Johnson over-stepping eight times in a three-over spell on day two at The Oval, but he was not no-balled at any stage."
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
That's exactly right Dingo. Television replays with copious cameras in any sport has created controversy that never would have been there. It's a shame but that's the way it is. The question now is how to we solve the issue...We either need to accept human error or go all the way with technology and take the no-ball ruling out of the on-field umpire's hands.