There's a simple solution to our no-ball conniptions

The cricket world – or at least the nations of Australia and Pakistan – are suddenly having conniptions about the no-ball rule and its application in practice.

Why? Because Pakistan’s Mohammad Rizwan was dismissed by the third umpire even though Pat Cummins appeared to have bowled a no ball and because 16-year-old debutant Naseem Shah was subsequently denied a wicket – his very first in Test cricket – when he transgressed the following day.

In the meantime, multiple leather-flingers obtain a slight advantage – at least in the prevention of run-scoring – by placing their front feet closer to the batsmen than the rules permit, with apparent impunity. Seldom is the possibility of a no ball even investigated, let alone called, in the modern age unless the termination of the batsman’s innings is at stake.

Okay, so something’s rotten in the state of the denigrated no-ball rule. But what’s the solution?

Here are some late-night musings, which the reader is free to take seriously or not, as their mood dictates.

The first option takes the current system into the realm of the utterly absurd. I’ll call it the bowler beware rule. Pursuant to this option, a bowler may deliver the ball from wherever they want. Half-way down the pitch. From adjacent to the mid-on fieldsman. Wherever!

The unpredictability of the delivery point may make run-scoring difficult and that’s great if you’re on the fielding side. But beware: if you knock over the stumps or have the batsman caught in the outfield, he won’t be given out.

Okay, the bowler beware rule has the potential to fundamentally change the way the game is played, so let’s abandon that one.

(AAP Image/Richard Wainwright) 

My next only semi-serious proposal is to make the task of the bowler easier.

When asked to explain why bowlers – even highly experienced ones – overstep, most pundits talk about the bowler unintentionally lengthening their stride as they strain to bowl a just little bit faster. So, instead of cutting the popping crease with their leading foot, they inadvertently venture into the forbidden zone and leave no part of their front boot behind the white line.

On the assumption that we can’t change human nature and that (most) bowlers will continue to deliver the ball from as close to the batsman as legally permissible, the root cause of the problem is that the line is too bloody narrow!

When they’re charging in at high speed, their arms pumping and their hearts pounding, it’s simply asking too much to expect the poor sod of a bowler to position his feet with such precision. And that’s even before we factor in a gazelle-like leap into the bowler’s delivery stride. To execute such an exquisitely meticulous manoeuvre requires the athleticism of an Olympic sprinter combined with the gymnastic skills of an acclaimed acrobat!

So why not make the damn task ten times easier?

What I have in mind is a delivery zone, measured by the length of two standard cricket boots.

Provided the bowler’s leading foot lands wholly within that delivery zone, it’s a legal delivery.

Now, as I’ve already acknowledged, human nature cannot be changed and the average bowler is only too human. They’re going to aim to land as close to the front of the delivery zone as possible. I know it.

But, at least under my impertinent proposal, the target is a large one and easier to judge as the bowler approaches the crease at terminal velocity. A clever bowler will aim to land in the front half of the delivery zone, to allow for some margin of error.

Perhaps the simplest solution to the no-ball shenanigans, however, is to give the third umpire something to do between DRS referrals (beyond chatting with his mates or watching Seinfeld re-runs).

Why can’t the third umpire be empowered to watch every delivery close-up, from side-on, and instruct their colleague at the bowler’s end to call a no ball every time the bowler transgresses? And I mean every single time.

Sometimes the call will be immediate, because the bowler has clearly overstepped. Other times, there might be a short delay while the third umpy watches a replay or three.

We, as viewers, may have to become accustomed to some no balls being called as the bowler reaches the top of their mark, but I think that’s a small price to pay to properly police the no-ball rule and educate bowlers to be more careful in the placement of their front foot.