Umpires and No Balls

[brandon]

International umpires need to start doing their f***ing job properly and call no balls.

Stokes has been reprieved twice, however the radio men were saying that particular bowler has actually bowled 40 (FORTY) deliveries from infront of the line.

That’s 40 extra runs England should’ve had, but more importantly, most importantly, the bowler cannot put right what is an obvious problem if he thinks he ISN’T overstepping.

 

[Dexter]

To be fair it’s not 40 extra runs England would’ve had. If it’s called a couple of times he’s unlikely to repeat it very often after that.

The third umpire should just be looking at the side on camera every ball and report back to the on field umpire if someone has overstepped. Not sure why this isn’t a thing with all the technology available.

 

[brandon]

To be fair it’s not 40 extra runs England would’ve had. If it’s called a couple of times he’s unlikely to repeat it very often after that.

The third umpire should just be looking at the side on camera every ball and report back to the on field umpire if someone has overstepped. Not sure why this isn’t a thing with all the technology available.

Exactly.

 

[TopCat]

The third umpire should just be looking at the side on camera every ball and report back to the on field umpire if someone has overstepped. Not sure why this isn’t a thing with all the technology available.

Agree

 

[Jap Stammer]

International umpires need to start doing their f***ing job properly and call no balls.

Can't agree more with this.

Essentially it's costing batting teams extra runs and letting bowlers off with consistently breaking the rules - it's not difficult to make sure you don't overstep.

What makes it worse in this particular match is that it's spinners doing it - pace bowlers I can understand to some degree, but a spinner should never break the line. And when someone's bowling at that pace,the umpire has no excuse regarding the amount of time they have to look up and re-focus on where the ball is pitching etc.

 

[The Rat]

to be fair the 2nd stokes one, how is an umpire meant to stop that? it took 2 replays and his foot was like 1mm infront of the line, you can't spot that with a naked eye, its impossible

 

[Mr Redknapp]

International umpires need to start doing their f***ing job properly and call no balls.

Stokes has been reprieved twice, however the radio men were saying that particular bowler has actually bowled 40 (FORTY) deliveries from infront of the line.

That’s 40 extra runs England should’ve had, but more importantly, most importantly, the bowler cannot put right what is an obvious problem if he thinks he ISN’T overstepping.

Heard that yesterday mate, he bowled 12 out of 30

 

[Jap Stammer]

to be fair the 2nd stokes one, how is an umpire meant to stop that? it took 2 replays and his foot was like 1mm infront of the line, you can't spot that with a naked eye, its impossible

I think the point is, it wouldn't have been that close if the Umpire had called some of the earlier no-balls, or even had a quiet word to let the bowler know he was getting close to over-stepping.

I'm not a qualified umpire but I had to stand in junior games all last season as part of the Team Manager's duties. I always made sure I explained what I would do regarding no-balls and wides to the opposition umpire and the bowlers as we walked out onto the pitch. As soon as they got close to overstepping I would let them know and as such had to call very few no-balls over the season.

It's a moot point now but it might have gained greater importance had Sri Lanka knocked off England's total - those extra 10 or 11 runs plus any runs scored off the extra deliveries might have made a huge difference.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

It's a moot point now but it might have gained greater importance had Sri Lanka knocked off England's total - those extra 10 or 11 runs plus any runs scored off the extra deliveries might have made a huge difference.

It's technically only really extra deliveries in an ODI or T20. But anyway, as long as the video ump is checking for overstepping on each dismissal let them carry on. 40 balls is nearly 7 overs they're preventing themselves from taking wickets. Why warn them? They're professionals and are supposed to know the rules. It would actually be unfair on the opposition to help them stop transgressing.

 

[SAFC2012]

to be fair the 2nd stokes one, how is an umpire meant to stop that? it took 2 replays and his foot was like 1mm infront of the line, you can't spot that with a naked eye, its impossible

21.5 Fair delivery – the feet

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride

21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery.

21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised

- on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and

- behind the popping crease.

If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he/she shall call and signal No ball. See Law 41.8 (Bowling of deliberate front foot No ball).

The last paragraph of the law is always ignored.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Think Buttler's idea of third umpires doing it and the on-field umpire wearing a buzzing watch or something is a very good one. If only for test cricket, where the full technology is deployed.

Have always thought umpires should be focusing primarily on getting their eyes lined-up to make the best lbw decisions.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

21.5 Fair delivery – the feet

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride

21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery.

21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised

- on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and

- behind the popping crease.

If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he/she shall call and signal No ball. See Law 41.8 (Bowling of deliberate front foot No ball).

The last paragraph of the law is always ignored.

Would be a lot simpler and easier to call if they just said you're not allowed to touch the popping crease with your front foot at all. In other words, you must just bowl from behind the line entirely.

 

[Bri]

It's technically only really extra deliveries in an ODI or T20. But anyway, as long as the video ump is checking for overstepping on each dismissal let them carry on. 40 balls is nearly 7 overs they're preventing themselves from taking wickets. Why warn them? They're professionals and are supposed to know the rules. It would actually be unfair on the opposition to help them stop transgressing.

Which would allow a fast bowler to bowl 5 balls from 21 years and then 1 wicket taking swinger from 22 - no, the 5 from 21 yards are unfair.

 

[Up the BR]

Free hit has practically eradicated front foot no balls from ODI's, perhaps that the way forward

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

Which would allow a fast bowler to bowl 5 balls from 21 years and then 1 wicket taking swinger from 22 - no, the 5 from 21 yards are unfair.

I don't think any sane bowler would risk all his wicket taking chances on a sixth of his deliveries.

 

[TheRey]

Free hit has practically eradicated front foot no balls from ODI's, perhaps that the way forward

No thank you. Perfectly happy with the free hit in bishbash cricket, but it'd have no place in the Test arena.

 

[Jap Stammer]

It's technically only really extra deliveries in an ODI or T20.

I don't get what you're saying here.

If you bowl a no-ball, you always have to bowl an extra delivery, regardless of what type of game it is.

Edit: And you always get an extra run added to the batting side's total.

 

[chelt_mackem]

No thank you. Perfectly happy with the free hit in bishbash cricket, but it'd have no place in the Test arena.

This. If umpires call no balls regularly, whether that's with technology or by eye, there will be fewer of them. It's not like the technology isn't there either, a very similar system was in use at Wimbledon in the 90s even, and a tennis ball spends a lot less time on the floor than a bowler's foot.

 

[The Rat]

21.5 Fair delivery – the feet

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride

21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery.

21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised

- on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and

- behind the popping crease.

If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he/she shall call and signal No ball. See Law 41.8 (Bowling of deliberate front foot No ball).

The last paragraph of the law is always ignored.

Still hard to spot, if they called it and he was just legal, they'd get slated

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

I don't get what you're saying here.

If you bowl a no-ball, you always have to bowl an extra delivery, regardless of what type of game it is.

In non limited overs matches it's irrelevant whether the next ball is a re-bowl of a no-ball or just the next ball. You still bat as long as you want and so get as many total overs as you want. I can't see why this is a difficult concept.

The extra run I'll grant you, but I might trade this for a ball you can't be out to anyway because of the 3rd ump.

No thank you. Perfectly happy with the free hit in bishbash cricket, but it'd have no place in the Test arena.

With the back foot rule it genuinely used to be a free hit, but now the call comes too late.