Umpires and No Balls

TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
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.
Click to expand...
I still don't get your point.

England set Sri Lanka a total of 327 to win. If the no balls had been called that target would have been at least 338 (we don't know how many more weren't called) plus any runs scored off the extra 11 deliveries that we know about.

The game came reasonably close to a Sri Lankan win that would have been a historic run chase.

If they had won by one wicket those missing additional runs from England's final total would have been a massive bone of contention.

The type of game is totally irrelevant here - it's the missing runs and opportunity to score from the extra deliveries that matters.
 
Last edited:


TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
I don't think any sane bowler would risk all his wicket taking chances on a sixth of his deliveries.
Click to expand...
It was an outside example, but bowlers do bowl 'set up' balls, one ball to put the batsman on his heels and the second or third is the toe crusher when he's deep in the wicket for the lbw.

No, umpires should call all no balls. It's even fair on bowlers if they're getting it wrong for them to be told.
 
Bri said:
It was an outside example, but bowlers do bowl 'set up' balls, one ball to put the batsman on his heels and the second or third is the toe crusher when he's deep in the wicket for the lbw.

No, umpires should call all no balls. It's even fair on bowlers if they're getting it wrong for them to be told.
Click to expand...
Umpires should call them, but if I was facing, say, Holding in his prime, I wouldn't mind if none were called unless it was when I got out to one and the video revealed it. And why would anybody want to be fair to bowlers?

Jap Stammer said:
I still don't get your point.

England set Sri Lanka a total of 327 to win. If the no balls had been called that target would have been at least 338 (we don't know how many more weren't called) plus any runs scored off the extra 11 deliveries that we know about.

The game came reasonably close to a Sri Lankan win that would have been a historic run chase.

If they had won by one wicket those missing additional runs from England's final total would have been a massive bone of contention.

The type of game is totally irrelevant here - it's the missing runs and opportunity to score from the extra deliveries that matters.
Click to expand...
England were bowled out in 69.5 overs, with no limit on how long they could bat. If those 11 no-balls had been called then in the book we would have simply been bowled out in 68.0 overs, but it would be the same number of actual deliveries. You'd have a point if you had a free hit after a no-ball, but since you have to play them as a normal delivery you can get out to, they aren't extra balls in any way. On the other hand, in a 50 over game you do get more than 50 overs to score off due to no-balls.

But, as has been pointed out, if they were all called without fail fewer would have been bowled anyway so even the 11 extras might not have been obtained.
 
Last edited:
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
England were bowled out in 69.5 overs, with no limit on how long they could bat. If those 11 no-balls had been called then in the book we would have simply been bowled out in 68.0 overs, but it would be the same number of actual deliveries. You'd have a point if you had a free hit after a no-ball, but since you have to play them as a normal delivery you can get out to, they aren't extra balls in any way. On the other hand, in a 50 over game you do get more than 50 overs to score off due to no-balls.

But, as has been pointed out, if they were all called without fail fewer would have been bowled anyway so even the 11 extras might not have been obtained.
Click to expand...
You're still not getting it.

The number of actual balls faced (and whether or not you can get out to them) and time spent batting is not the relevant factor here - it's the total number of runs on which England ended up after being bowled out - they didn't declare or reach the end of an allotted number of overs.

They were effectively robbed of 11 runs plus anything they could have scored off the extra deliveries in each over (admittedly, they could also have lost wickets to those additional deliveries). I've played a long time and I don't think I can count the number of times I've seen the additional seventh ball (or eighth, ninth or tenth) disappear to the boundary, making the bowling of those no-balls much more costly than just the one penalty run for overstepping.

As I stated earlier, it's a moot point now but I would have been interested in the reaction if those no-balls had been spotted after England had lost by one wicket and it was pointed out that Sri Lanka should have had to score at least another 11 runs to win.
 
Jap Stammer said:
They were effectively robbed of 11 runs plus anything they could have scored off the extra deliveries in each over (admittedly, they could also have lost wickets to those additional deliveries).
Click to expand...
It's you that isn't getting it. In a test match, you get any amount of deliveries you want until you are all out or declare, the only difference here is that some by law shouldn't have been counted as part of the over in the score book. I'll concede the 11 extras, but would those no-balls have been bowled at all if they were all being called? And if it's a good bowler you might not want to face a 7th ball anyway.

But in an ODI, you should normally get exactly 300 balls to score off, but if there are 11 no-balls you get 311, and 22 of them you can't get out off either. Those are genuine extra deliveries.
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
It's you that isn't getting it. In a test match, you get any amount of deliveries you want until you are all out or declare, the only difference here is that some by law shouldn't have been counted as part of the over in the score book. I'll concede the 11 extras, but would those no-balls have been bowled at all if they were all being called? And if it's a good bowler you might not want to face a 7th ball anyway.

But in an ODI, you should normally get exactly 300 balls to score off, but if there are 11 no-balls you get 311, and 22 of them you can't get out off either. Those are genuine extra deliveries.
Click to expand...
I think you're mixing up how the number of overs bowled and number of balls bowled are recorded.

You stated earlier that England faced 69.5 overs and that if the 11 missed no-balls had been called we would have only faced 68 overs. That's wrong. They would have faced 69.5 overs regardless of whether or not the no-balls were called.

If a no-ball or wide is bowled in an over, an extra delivery is bowled making that a seven-ball over (or more, if more no-balls or wides are called). At the end of the over, it's still classed as one complete over regardless of the number of actual balls bowled. Modern scorebooks allow for this by having an extra column for 'balls bowled' where you fill in the individual bowling statistics - it's not uncommon to see entries such as '6.0 overs bowled, 40 balls bowled'.

So 69.5 overs bowled does not necessarily mean 419 balls have been bowled (69 times 6, plus 5). It simply means 69 overs have been completed plus one incomplete over of 5 balls. If some of those 69 completed overs contained wides or no-balls the the actual number of balls faced would rise but the number of overs wouldn't change.

England were bowled out in 69.5 overs - there were three no-balls called and one wide, so the actual number of balls faced was 423 (69 time 6, plus 5 [as described above], plus 3 [extra balls following the no balls], plus 1 [extra ball following the wide]). My point is that they should have had another 11 balls to face (for the no-balls not called) making it 434. These are all extra deliveries they could have scored off, notwithstanding the 11 runs they should also have had added to the overall total. The total number of overs faced would still have been 69.5 though, as it's a count of the overs faced, not the balls faced.

I get your point that had the umpires called the first few no-balls then the others may not have happened. But they didn't call them, and the other no-balls did happen, so England were robbed of an additional 11 runs plus anything they may have scored of the additional 11 balls they should have received.
 
Last edited:
Jap Stammer said:
I think you're mixing up how the number of overs bowled and number of balls bowled are recorded.

You stated earlier that England faced 69.5 overs and that if the 11 missed no-balls had been called we would have only faced 68 overs. That's wrong. They would have faced 69.5 overs regardless of whether or not the no-balls were called.
Click to expand...
Listen mate. I know exactly how it works. We'd have been all out in the same number of total deliveries, legal or otherwide, and you saying we would have somehow had "extra" balls to get "extra" runs off is complete and utter bollox if you just think about it for a minute. I explained it all in my last post very clearly. What you say might be true if you had the extra balls as free hits, but as they're not in test matches you can get out to them in the same way you can off normal balls, so you don't magically extend your innings by the 11 balls. The only difference is that the odd ball is bowled by a different bowler due to 6 rather than 7 in the over.

Why does an innings last 11 deliveries more, just because 11 of them are no-balls? It's obvious if you compare it to limited overs games where the innings is actually longer as a result of no-balls.

Are you trying to wind me up? How can I put it any simpler?

Fuck's sake :lol:
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
Listen mate. I know exactly how it works. We'd have been all out in the same number of total deliveries, legal or otherwide, and you saying we would have somehow had "extra" balls to get "extra" runs off is complete and utter bollox if you just think about it for a minute. I explained it all in my last post very clearly. What you say might be true if you had the extra balls as free hits, but as they're not in test matches you can get out to them in the same way you can off normal balls, so you don't magically extend your innings by the 11 balls. The only difference is that the odd ball is bowled by a different bowler due to 6 rather than 7 in the over.

Why does an innings last 11 deliveries more, just because 11 of them are no-balls? It's obvious if you compare it to limited overs games where the innings is actually longer as a result of no-balls.

Are you trying to wind me up? How can I put it any simpler?

Fuck's sake :lol:
Click to expand...
Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Not getting into an internet argument with a stranger over the rules of a game I've played for over forty years.
 
I've umpired in Spenny's games for 3 years now and its OK at our mostly gentle pace. When a lad is hossing it down at 75 mph however, by the time I have looked up from the front foot, it has sometimes been too late!
 
Bri said:
God yea. What is so controversial about thinking umpires should call no balls. It don't matter who benefits, if anyone. #lawsofthegame.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe they should. But obviously with the current front foot rule it could be literally impossible due to the angle it's seen at.

However, as I've said, if you're facing Holding, knowing any un-called no-balls can't get you out anyway because of TMO, why do you give a fuck? I'd sooner get the runs off the bat.
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
Well, maybe they should. But obviously with the current front foot rule it could be literally impossible due to the angle it's seen at.

However, as I've said, if you're facing Holding, knowing any un-called no-balls can't get you out anyway because of TMO, why do you give a fuck? I'd sooner get the runs off the bat.
Click to expand...
as an aside IIRC, when England played the West Indies there were lots of no balls called, extras was often England's top scorer.
 

Back
Top