The no-ball rule must be changed

The no-ball rule isn't in the laws to give the batsman a "free hit".

If i was a coach, the loss of a wicket because of over-stepping would be a sackable offence. Absolutely inexcusable. There is no rule to say your heel must land on the crease. Take a foot back FFS! It will make no difference if the middle of your foot lands there!

I'd like to see either a reversion to the back-foot rule (to give umps more time) or the third umpire being made responsible for calling no balls. But you are right that coaching and training standards need to be better. Richard Hadlee spoke about making sure he always used his exact match day run-up at training, to the point where he actually had it timed. Bowling constant no-balls at training - and big ones, at that - can't be good match preparation. I'll probably open a can of worms here but I didn't have a problem with the Cummins decision by the third umpire. The frame everyone is looking at pretty much shows the heel flush with the back of the line, which means we're talking about a difference of a couple of millimetres either way. In isolation, that frame looks like a no ball on balance. But there are two important points that few people seem to be considering. Firstly, the initial contact between Cummins' foot and the ground probably happened in between frames. If that's the case, and the relevant frame shows his heel flush with the line, surely there's a reasonable chance that a small part of the heel was behind the line at the initial point of contact? Secondly, the ICC has instructed third umps (as a matter of policy, not an actual rule) to call no balls in that situation only where they are certain no part of the heel was behind the line. In essence, because the on-field umpire didn't call a no ball, the benefit of the doubt goes to the bowler. If the third umpire felt he couldn't be sure then I don't see an issue with his decision to allow the wicket to stand. Conversely, if the on-field umpire had called a no ball then I would have been fine with that too. There's no reason for Cummins' foot to be that far forward.

But easier for real time adjudication by the third umpire.

The bowler would indeed need to be pedestrian for the batsman to get time to change his shot. Better off for the third umpire to adjudicate, add a run to the score if necessary and move on. Any wicket taken would be subject to that procedure.

That would make it harder to umpire because the umpire is behind the bowler. I thought the bowler had to have some part of the foot touch the ground behind the line; change to that and there’s no problem. To me the bigger problem is that umpires have stopped calling obvious no balls. The one that got the “wicket” should have been called by the umpire straight away; it was very obvious.

You'll have exactly the same problem - did the foot touch the line? It will be just as much a matter of fractions of a millimetre. If anything it will be worse because the bowler's foot will land fully behind the line and then move forward to touch. Is that a no-ball under your proposal? Does it make a difference when the ball is released? It will also be harder for umpires as lower levels - the foot will obscure the line from the umpire's view. As regards why the front foot law was brought in I don't claim to really know but have a look at photos of Gordon Rorke bowling and that will give some idea. I don't think bowlers getting as far forward as they can under the current law is anything new (and nor would it have started with Dennis Lillee) and nor do I think it breaches the spirit of the law.

Sometimes people get into mental contortions worrying about whether the ball was a millimetre this side or that side of the line. This gives negligible advantage either way. I can actually see why the ump in the Cummins decision thought it was impossible to be 100 per cent sure that a tiny part of the heel was behind the line in the air, although you would have thought it looked 99 per cent certain. The batsman can’t complain too much given the stroke he played, though he might feel a little unlucky he didn’t get a reprieve. The real problem is with overstepping by a significant margin and the fact that umps aren’t picking it up often enough, which makes such situations more likely. But if the suggestion is to change the rule back to back foot no-balls, as Richie Benaud used to bang on about - that’s dumb. Gives unnecessary and unfair additional advantage to taller players with longer strides, or slides, as in Ray Lindwall, who used to land his front foot a good six inches or more over the front crease.

There were also 21 uncalled no balls yesterday. If the first one was called, they might have made adjustments. But given all 21 did not happen before Warner’s reprieve and that many happened after, it’s safe to assume the Pakistanis were either stubborn and/or slow learners. And then there is the issue of Australia’s missing 21 runs… PS: I reckon a smidge of Cummins heel was behind the line when his foot touched down.

It would be easier (and in my view better) to have the 3rd umpire call no balls and let the on field umpires concentrate on the ball itself. DRS is (generally) very good for line decisions and it wouldn't take time. The only downside would be the batsman not getting a "free hit" from the on field umpire's call of no ball - given that it's questionable that a batsman actually gets time to react to a call on a pace bowler anyway, that seems a very minor price to pay.

So, "the rule must be changed" because the third umpire made a mistake and a kid in his first test missed out on a wicket? Wherever you put the line, the bowlers will push the limit and the umpires will make mistakes. So the rule is not the problem.

Not a bad idea. I'm not sure about the professionals but I've seen it consistently at grade cricket - the fast bowlers can be as much as a meter over the line at training and never get chatted about it (other than from the batsman). They are trying to impress selectors by knocking over stumps. We got a rookie umpire to come to one training session and call no balls - it worked. The bowlers quickly pulled back their delivery stride.

Umpires have shown they are incapable to consistency get the LBW right. I’ve been saying it for ages. Let the umpire focus on the front foot then the edge only. Leave the LBW to DRS. The DRS LBW referral process can be shortened considerably.

I had to read the article twice and I still don’t understand the point of it. What do you want to change it to?

So we have to change the front foot law, which has been in place for more than 50 years, because Cummins wasn't called and another bloke was? Really? Robert Craddock summed up EXACTLY what happens at every net session. Fast bowlers pay little or no attention to their run up, come steaming in and consistently bowl no balls. They then go into a game with the same bad habits and wonder why they miss out on wickets through no-balling. Rather than change the rules,why don't coaches get bowlers to actually bowl properly in the nets, so they take GOOD habits into games? In equal measure, umpires aren't calling anywhere near the number of no-balls being bowled, which is compounding the problem. They too need to start to do their jobs properly,rather than being selective on which deliveries they call and which they ignore.

How should the rule be changed? Are you saying the umpires shouldn't be checking for no-balls at the fall of a wicket.