This is a short and light article, nothing to challenge Dr Sheldon Cooper or the like. I didn’t set the world on fire in my physics classes.
It is, however, a bit of a challenge for common sense to rise and less histrionics – especially from some commentators and journos.
I also meant to have this in before the first Test, but of course I was diverted by the working world and lightning struck. Thanks Ishant…
I’ve watched cricket for many years and over time have learned to expect that in these series there could be a no-ball wicket or two. What I haven’t learnt to live with is the response. There is regularly a verbal flogging of the bowler who is engaged in such an event, complete with a repetitious judgement of how the no-ball cost the wicket.
So let’s tackle this. Not every ‘no-ball’ that took a wicket would still have taken that wicket if the ball had been legal.
In fact, it’s probably likely to be very few.
Consider this: cricket is known to be a game of ‘inches’ (or centimetres to be correct, though metric measurements just don’t have the same ‘ring’ to it).
So if you sent the ball down at the right spot (instead of the no-ball delivery) it would, actually, hit the bat one-inch away from where it did.
One inch off a moving bat changes the trajectory massively. That snick to second slip flies through the empty fourth slip instead.
The ball arrives at the batsman in a different position, doing different things. The movement, spin, bounce are all affected as well as where the ball impacts with the bat.
That edge onto the stumps becomes a ‘French cut’, that cutter that comes back in and cleans up the stumps hits the ground at a different location and spot on the ball and doesn’t move.
So next time there is a no-ball wicket, don’t jump on the commentary bandwagon, castigating the bowler with tales of missed opportunity doesn’t cut it.
A no-ball wicket is not a guarantee of a legal ball wicket. Unless the ball was bowled, gun-barrel straight, and the batter didn’t play at it – or swung and missed by more than the length of the infringement and the ball hits pads plumb or cleans up the wickets – then it’s unlikely it would still be a wicket if the ball was legal.
The ball bowled by Ishant Sharma that was declared a no-ball would very likely have gone over the stumps if released an inch earlier.
So now with the Test over I can have my one paragraph review. I still dislike DRS, rules say ‘in opinion of the umpire’ yet some guy in a box adjudicates according to his own opinions in slow motion. And yet mistakes still happen – big ones.
One incident in the Test had the third umpire judging the appeal rather than determining if there was evidence to overturn the on field decision.
Congratulations to India yet our boys made it tough for them. To win this series though, we need to make some changes and I don’t pretend to know what they are. Moving Usman Khawaja to open isn’t the answer, you don’t strengthen a spot by weakening another. Good luck to the selectors.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think saying "unlikely" is incorrect though. More likely saying "you can't guarantee" that the same result wouldn't have happened if the bowlers release point is shifted back 1cm or 5cm or whatever they are over the line by. But saying "unlikely" is probably incorrect. The batsman reacts to the ball in the air, so if the bowler had bowled the same ball which pitched in the same place, moved in the same way from a couple of centremetres further back, who's to say it wouldn't have had the same result. But it's an argument based on things completely unprovable either way. The only way to determine an answer to that is to travel to an alternate universe where everything else is 100% the same except the bowler delivered the ball from that tiny bit further back so it wasn't a no ball.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think you miss the point of the logic. No, just a single no-ball being called doesn't mean the bowlers are adjusting. They are still overstepping, meaning if a wicket falls the third umpire will check and it will be called a no-ball and the wicket won't stand. If an umpire calls a bowler for a no ball whenever they overstep, then they know they have to adjust something to make sure they land behind the line, and then there's more chance that when a wicket falls it's off a legitimate ball. If a bowler is overstepping every ball but never getting called by the onfield umpire, then you can almost guarantee that when a wicket falls the third umpire will check the front foot and call the batsman back because it's a no ball. This is less likely to happen if the on field umpire calls the no balls and stops the bowler from just overstepping all the time.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Thanks Peter, you get it. Cheers
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
DaveJ Truer words were rarely spoken. I just wanted to bring another thought into the mix - and that is - if the wicket came of a no-ball it's actually unlikely to have been a wicket off a legal delivery. Cheers
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Well said. :)
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Thanks Paul, but I wasn't looking at whether a no ball was called or if bowlers were adjusting. Simply, if there is a wicket off a no-ball, it's probably likely to not have been a wicket with a legal ball. Cheers
Peter
Guest
Actually, there is nothing wrong with DP's argument. Whether there should be more no-balls called in Test cricket, as you seem to be suggesting, is another discussion entirely. And as for your logic - if only one no-ball is called, doesn't that mean the bowlers ARE adjusting? So that means that all but one balls bowled could have taken a wicket. Coulda woulda shoulda, didn't. Don't you love Test cricket?
Peter
Guest
DaveJ, you appear to be in fierce agreement with DP! Saying the bowler should not have bowled a no-ball - we can all agree with that. DP's comment is about what happens when he does, and "takes a wicket." Many commentators carry on as if that was a certain wicket not taken. But as you say, you can't be certain.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
DP you’re right that it’s illogical to say that a ball would or would not have taken a wicket if it had been bowled a centimetre or two back. But that’s not the point. The point is not to bowl a no ball. The rule is to prevent an unfair advantage. If your front foot gets even close to that line you are taking a risk. A no ball that would otherwise have dismissed a batsman obviously feels doubly wasteful because it might have taken a wicket if it had been bowled a cm or two further back. But you can’t be sure.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
your argument about the trajectories seems to be true, but the reason that the bowler gets abused is because he bowled a delivery that cannot get a wicket (apart from the obvious exceptions with a no ball). There is no point delivering a ball that cannot get a wicket
Paul
Roar Guru
Your article was light on logic, if nothing else. The issue with no-balls, wickets, etc, is the no-ball is rarely called in Test cricket. In the current innings there's been exactly one called, which means bowlers aren't adjusting. If they did, they could certainly bowl a legal delivery that took a wicket.