Some things that really annoy me!!!

[greatwhiteshark]

There are some things in cricket that are really pissing me off and was interested in thoughts of others on these matters.

1) No Balls - In my view an umpire has no easier task than to call no balls, it is his simplest and most basic task. Yet they are missing many of them and without any penalty at all. This business of when a wicket falls the front foot is checked gives me the shits. If the umpire does not call it then in my view that is the end of it. If it turns out it is a no ball then the umpire should face discipline action with penalty's. Like being sacked for a test match, lose pay etc etc. It should not matter whether it is a critical ball in the game or just a ball which goes through to the keeper, the umps should be better at calling no balls. It is lazy and they need to be sorted out on this issue.

2) Boundary line - Years ago before the rope was introduces as the boundary a four was signalled when the ball hit the fence or rolled into the fence gutter. It mattered not that a players body was touching the fence. It was simple. Why have we made the rope complicated. It should matter not one bit if a players body is touching or over the rope. The ball either hits the rope or it doesn't. The object of the batsman is to hit the ball to reach or cross the rope. The object of the fielding side is to stop the ball from hitting or crossing the rope. It is so simple yet it is now complicated with all this crap about the fieldsman having part of his body touching the rope or across it. The ball either hits the rope or it doesn't and that is all that should be taken into account.

3) Sight screens - Many of these are huge these days, on top of the fact they also put big white areas around the actual screen as well. Why are batsman all of a sudden worried about things which happen 30 foot above these or 30 ft to the right or left of these? Games being held up because batsman think something which has no impact on their ball view is moved. The only thing they have to worry about is where the ball is released from the bowlers hand. 5 feet in all directions is all they need if they are concentrating. Yet they have it covered by 30 metres in either direction. If they are concentrating there should be no hold up and no issue. Sun reflection is somewhat different and I can appreciate that glare off someones glass or a window can be a disturbance.

Thoughts

 

[Ross Prunster]

Agree on all three. Add in get rid of the the review system. Also West Perth to go back to back.

 

[courtjester]

All true. I don't understand why the boundary rope isn't gotten rid of entirely, and a line painted on the grass. And if the ball touches the line, it's a boundary.

 

[Belnakor]

1) No Balls - In my view an umpire has no easier task than to call no balls, it is his simplest and most basic task. Yet they are missing many of them and without any penalty at all. This business of when a wicket falls the front foot is checked gives me the shits. If the umpire does not call it then in my view that is the end of it. If it turns out it is a no ball then the umpire should face discipline action with penalty's. Like being sacked for a test match, lose pay etc etc. It should not matter whether it is a critical ball in the game or just a ball which goes through to the keeper, the umps should be better at calling no balls. It is lazy and they need to be sorted out on this issue.

disagree - the 3rd umpire should deal with 100% of no-balls. He has the camera angle, he should watch every delivery.

Sometimes i get the feeling the 3rd umpire is basically sitting there having a wank until someone radios up to him.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

disagree - the 3rd umpire should deal with 100% of no-balls. He has the camera angle, he should watch every delivery.

Sometimes i get the feeling the 3rd umpire is basically sitting there having a wank until someone radios up to him.

At this present point of time it is not the 3rd umpires responsibility. If it was yes you are correct in what you say. But while it is the respansibility of the central umpire he should have to do is job.
The other thing they changed is that some part of the foot has to be behind the line, it used to be just 5-10 years ago that any part of your foot must touch the line. This was easier to umpire and there was no reason for it to change.

 

[courtjester]

disagree - the 3rd umpire should deal with 100% of no-balls. He has the camera angle, he should watch every delivery.

Sometimes i get the feeling the 3rd umpire is basically sitting there having a wank until someone radios up to him.

So they can only be called after the delivery is played?

One of the cool things in the olden days was umpires would call them early and batsmen could just swing hard, like a free hit.

 

[courtjester]

At this present point of time it is not the 3rd umpires responsibility. If it was yes you are correct in what you say. But while it is the respansibility of the central umpire he should have to do is job.
The other thing they changed is that some part of the foot has to be behind the line, it used to be just 5-10 years ago that any part of your foot must touch the line. This was easier to umpire and there was no reason for it to change.

Back foot rule etc. Much easier for the central umpire.

I umpired some 4ths cricket recently and I was experimenting with trying to watch the no-ball, then watch the actual delivery. Bloody hard against trundlers, FIIK how umpires could possibly do it at Johnson or Steyn's pace

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Back foot rule etc. Much easier for the central umpire.

I umpired some 4ths cricket recently and I was experimenting with trying to watch the no-ball, then watch the actual delivery. Bloody hard against trundlers, FIIK how umpires could possibly do it at Johnson or Steyn's pace

The front foot rule has been in for many decades now, umpires have been able to manage for many years. They used to stand much closer to the stumps but now they stand back a long way. Yes the back foot rule is much easier but it created draggers and they ended up bowling a long way past the front line. Just go back to some part of the foot must touch the line. That is easy for everyone.
The reason they are struggling now is because they know there is a backup mechanism if they get it wrong. Thats ok but the umpires should be punished for missing the amount they are missing.

 

[Belnakor]

So they can only be called after the delivery is played?

One of the cool things in the olden days was umpires would call them early and batsmen could just swing hard, like a free hit.

then make the next ball a free hit. Whatever.

The umpire should be concentrating on the play, not looking down then looking up again

 

[Sylvia Saint]

Agreed on points 1 and 3. I absolutely hate the umpires going upstairs to check for no-balls. Call it live, and if they miss it, then tough s**t. If they must insist on keeping this shitty rule in, then it would be better if they just did it for EVERY wicket, and not randomly. Really peeves me off. The DRS is fine if not a little flawed, but the front-foot checking is massive overkill.

In terms of the sight-screen, well there's little wonder we don't get 90 overs in a day (even with the extra half hour). Batsmen are getting neurotic and (at a guess) will collectively pull out or halt a delivery at least 6-10 times a day, there's 1-2 overs of time wasted right there.

Point 2 doesn't worry me that much.

 

[ROOTA#6]

disagree - the 3rd umpire should deal with 100% of no-balls. He has the camera angle, he should watch every delivery.

Sometimes i get the feeling the 3rd umpire is basically sitting there having a wank until someone radios up to him.

My problem with the no ball reviewing has got to do with how many runs might be being missed. If they are only reviewing wickets who is to say that there are not 10 or so others throughout the day that aren't wickets that are being missed. Could be the difference between winning or losing a match

 

[Mockcockpit]

The other thing they changed is that some part of the foot has to be behind the line, it used to be just 5-10 years ago that any part of your foot must touch the line. This was easier to umpire and there was no reason for it to change.

As far as I know the line has always belonged to the umpire.

 

[damochandler]

you know what annoys me

front seat passengers that yell out the window at pedestrians. tools

 

[jefffff34]

Slow over rates...

 

[Carbine Chaos]

When the dog bites.

When the bee stings.

When I'm feeling sad.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Naggers.

 

[evdo1706]

While we are at it, we should also ban helmets and other extra protective gears and go back to how it was years ago.

 

[Hate]

Cricket umpires at the highest level are basically (imo) getting paid to do nothing.

No ball? * it, we'll use a replay.
Check the front foot after a replay? Yep, use a replay.
Boundary? Yep, we'll check that with 500 replays.


May as well not have a guy standing there, and just use technology and delay the game by a good minute or two every time something happens.

 

[ioppolo]

The no ball checking after every wicket falls pisses me off so much

 

[Andrew Mc]

Cricket umpires at the highest level are basically (imo) getting paid to do nothing.

No ball? **** it, we'll use a replay.
Check the front foot after a replay? Yep, use a replay.
Boundary? Yep, we'll check that with 500 replays.

May as well not have a guy standing there, and just use technology and delay the game by a good minute or two every time something happens.

The last one isn't a good example. The problem is you can't trust the player who fielded it these days (and in any case, may not know). Can't blame the ump for not being able to see something 100 metres away.

The no ball checking after every wicket falls pisses me off so much

Ask Shane Warne what he thinks about it. Would probably have a Test century if it was around in his day.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Cricket umpires at the highest level are basically (imo) getting paid to do nothing.

No ball? **** it, we'll use a replay.
Check the front foot after a replay? Yep, use a replay.
Boundary? Yep, we'll check that with 500 replays.


May as well not have a guy standing there, and just use technology and delay the game by a good minute or two every time something happens.

Typical hipster punk. You have NFI how difficult it is to keep doing those arm signals when a decision is made.

 

[sherb]

There are some things in cricket that are really pissing me off and was interested in thoughts of others on these matters.

1) No Balls - In my view an umpire has no easier task than to call no balls, it is his simplest and most basic task.

Thoughts

My thoughts on this are that I couldn't disagree more.

He's got blokes charging in, often pushing the line to the mm, and he only has a split second to make the call because he then has to look up to make a decision at the other end of the wicket. Again in a split second.

Your bolded statement is extremely harsh in my view.

 

[sherb]

2) Boundary line - Years ago before the rope was introduces as the boundary a four was signalled when the ball hit the fence or rolled into the fence gutter. It mattered not that a players body was touching the fence. It was simple. Why have we made the rope complicated. It should matter not one bit if a players body is touching or over the rope. The ball either hits the rope or it doesn't. The object of the batsman is to hit the ball to reach or cross the rope. The object of the fielding side is to stop the ball from hitting or crossing the rope. It is so simple yet it is now complicated with all this crap about the fieldsman having part of his body touching the rope or across it. The ball either hits the rope or it doesn't and that is all that should be taken into account.

I agree with you on this.

However, what's your position with a six?

 

[southernswannies]

Pretty sure the No Ball issue is being dealt with at the next ICC meeting and will likely result in the umpires being scared into not asking for it anymore.

 

[Despair]

My thoughts on this are that I couldn't disagree more.

He's got blokes charging in, often pushing the line to the mm, and he only has a split second to make the call because he then has to look up to make a decision at the other end of the wicket. Again in a split second.

Your bolded statement is extremely harsh in my view.

Agree with Sherb here. If it is a spinner, okay, shouldn't be missing those.

But if it's someone like Johnson, Steyn or basically any fast bowler with an athletic/explosive action, it would be ridiculously hard to see where the foot initially lands, you can't go off where the foot ends up either because of sliding.

I think it's unfair to judge umpires on this until you've had to do it at an Elite level.

Note: Sometimes it can get even harder when bowlers start pushing out wide to increase the angle, you need to look out for them breaching the return crease.