Should the square leg umpire move in line with the bowlers crease to determine no-balls?

[Blue and Gold Blood]

It appears that umpires these days are incompetent at calling no balls live as it happens in test matches. They constantly ask for the replay after a wicket, often when the bowler has just about their whole foot behind the line. So if the umpire is primarily looking down the pitch at LBW's and faint nicks to the wicket keeper, why dont we drag the square leg umpire over to the bowlers crease to watch for no balls?

What does the square leg umpire really officiate these days? Bouncers are let go unless they are 2 feet over the batsmans head. The square leg umpire really does nothing of any substance to help officiate wickets. It would make much more sense to have them move from square leg to around mid-wicket to adjudicate no balls for fast bowlers, which would allow the other umpire to just concentrate on lbw's, etc.

Im sick of seeing fast bowlers celebrate a wicket, only to have this anti-climax of waiting for the 3rd umpire to review the bowlers front foot landing.

 

[Plugger35]

The square leg umpire has to adjudicate stumpings, although they usually refer them to the 3rd umpire now anyway.

 

[glenferry23]

its been said many times before, but surely we can follow tennis' lead and look to adopt some form of technology to automatically adjudicate whether the front has crossed the line?

 

[Borisdog]

its been said many times before, but surely we can follow tennis' lead and look to adopt some form of technology to automatically adjudicate whether the front has crossed the line?

Completely agree with this. It can't be hard, they've been doing it successfully for years now.

 

[mattymac]

nah. technology is the answer. give an instant buzz so the batsman can attempt to flay the skin off it if he's good enough

 

[Blue and Gold Blood]

The square leg umpire has to adjudicate stumpings, although they usually refer them to the 3rd umpire now anyway.

Pretty much. They dont trust themselves with run outs and stumpings anymore. They might as well make themselves useful and judge no-balls. At least it would cut down on the amount of replays we need. Its so stupid needing the video ref for a no ball after a wicket.

 

[neng]

Need to adjudicate over the shoulder no-balls also, which from front on you sometimes can't judge and would take too long with technology.

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

What a strange suggestion. Um no.

 

[Blue and Gold Blood]

What a strange suggestion. Um no.

Provide an answer as to why its a bad idea, or why the current position at square leg is better...

 

[Starburns_]

Need to adjudicate over the shoulder no-balls also, which from front on you sometimes can't judge and would take too long with technology.

Can't believe that it took 7 posts for someone to mention this.

Also, the no-balls being reviewed seems to be happening mostly to Siddle, could simply be a case of him cutting it finer than most with his front foot, or that his action makes it difficult for the umpires to see properly.

 

[Sman-21]

Theres a limit to how many bouncers a bowler can bowl, so needs to be there to judge the height of them.
Then also needs to judge the height of full tosses.
Also needs to be there to judge run outs although most now get referred anyway.

So lose an umpire doing all that to put him in a position to just make 1 call, which normally the other umpire gets right 90% of the time anyway.
Yep what a wonderful idea

As for technology theres a batsmen that crosses the lines around the same time as the bowler releases so that means it wont work.

 

[Rob]

If they were serious about doing it, just have a TV with a permanent link to the side on camera in the 3rd umpire's room with the microphone link to the central umpire. If he bowls a noball, it's an immediate message to the central umpire 'no ball' and it's called straight away.

It's not like the 3rd umpire is doing anything at that time anyway.

 

[sherb]

Provide an answer as to why its a bad idea, or why the current position at square leg is better...

The answer is to have the third umpire do the determining of no-balls.

Edit - Rob beat me to it.

 

[The Passenger]

wouldn't a better idea be to get the third umpire to adjuicate on no balls?? what do they do all day anyway....

 

[Tiff]

Something needs to be done. I'm sick of seeing great moments killed by an umpire seeing if the front foot was legal.

So are they saying that every other delivery they've been spot on? No, so why don't they refer every delivery? It's ****ing stupid.

You don't see them referring a dot ball to check for a no-ball. I just don't think that whole thing is cricket.

Either put some sensers on the line or **** that double checking wicket no-balls bullshit right off.

 

[sherb]

Something needs to be done. I'm sick of seeing great moments killed by an umpire seeing if the front foot was legal.

So are they saying that every other delivery they've been spot on? No, so why don't they refer every delivery? It's ****ing stupid.

You don't see them referring a dot ball to check for a no-ball. I just don't think that whole thing is cricket.

Either put some sensers on the line or **** that double checking wicket no-balls bullshit right off.

Because every other delivery isn't a wicket.

And they are only checking the wicket taking deliveries where they have a suspicion that it may be a no-ball, so it really isn't that many in the overall scheme of things.

Wicket taking deliveries are generally the most crucial in a match. There can only ever be 40 of them maximum in a Test. I think it is vital that these deliveries be legal and don't have an issue with the umpire checking if there is any doubt in their mind.

It's easy to be critical of umpires for this but be realistic.

They are expected to make a no-ball call/or otherwise on fast bowlers charging in and landing their feet within mm of the line (feet which are often moving). They are then expected to look straight up to enable them to make a decision on the ball that has just been delivered. Mistakes are going to be made in that split second, they have been and will continue to be.

So this is just a way of making sure that mistakes are eliminated from the most crucial deliveries in the match.

Is it ideal? Certainly not. Clearly it causes a lot of frustrations, especially when it is shown that the call wasn't a mm close one.

I've suggested the answer earlier on. Take the no-ball call away from the standing umpire altogether. The third umpire can make the decision, he is doing nothing else at the time of delivery. Apart from the benefit of getting no-ball calls right far more often, it then frees up the standing umpire to focus totally on the delivery and hopefully help with the accuracy of decisions.

 

[Tiff]

Because every other delivery isn't a wicket.

And they are only checking the wicket taking deliveries where they have a suspicion that it may be a no-ball, so it really isn't that many in the overall scheme of things.

Wicket taking deliveries are generally the most crucial in a match. There can only ever be 40 of them maximum in a Test. I think it is vital that these deliveries be legal and don't have an issue with the umpire checking if there is any doubt in their mind.

It's easy to be critical of umpires for this but be realistic.

They are expected to make a no-ball call/or otherwise on fast bowlers charging in and landing their feet within mm of the line (feet which are often moving). They are then expected to look straight up to enable them to make a decision on the ball that has just been delivered. Mistakes are going to be made in that split second, they have been and will continue to be.

So this is just a way of making sure that mistakes are eliminated from the most crucial deliveries in the match.

Is it ideal? Certainly not. Clearly it causes a lot of frustrations, especially when it is shown that the call wasn't a mm close one.

I've suggested the answer earlier on. Take the no-ball call away from the standing umpire altogether. The third umpire can make the decision, he is doing nothing else at the time of delivery. Apart from the benefit of getting no-ball calls right far more often, it then frees up the standing umpire to focus totally on the delivery and hopefully help with the accuracy of decisions.

This is a good post.

I overreacted. I just think I preferred it when it was left up to the umpire. If you lost a wicket and the replays showed a no-ball then stiff. However this applies to DRS as well I guess so I'm getting a little off track.

I like all of the technology but purely for entertainment purposes ie watching it on the tele. The game was just as good without all this nonesense.

But I did grow up with third umpire for runouts, and I can't remember complaining about that, so I guess it's just something I need to get used to

 

[dumb]

could just take something simple like changing the color of the crease paint, or bowlers shoe soles.

 

[The Passenger]

I've suggested the answer earlier on. Take the no-ball call away from the standing umpire altogether. The third umpire can make the decision, he is doing nothing else at the time of delivery. Apart from the benefit of getting no-ball calls right far more often, it then frees up the standing umpire to focus totally on the delivery and hopefully help with the accuracy of decisions.

100% this should be the case.

 

[sherb]

This is a good post.

I overreacted. I just think I preferred it when it was left up to the umpire. If you lost a wicket and the replays showed a no-ball then stiff. However this applies to DRS as well I guess so I'm getting a little off track.

I like all of the technology but purely for entertainment purposes ie watching it on the tele. The game was just as good without all this nonesense.

But I did grow up with third umpire for runouts, and I can't remember complaining about that, so I guess it's just something I need to get used to

That's fine in theory, until it happens to your side.

In the last test in England in 2009 (or was it 2005, I can never remember, lol), we lost 2 or 3 wickets to deliveries that were shown to be no-balls. This board was a very, very unhappy place.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Because every other delivery isn't a wicket.

And they are only checking the wicket taking deliveries where they have a suspicion that it may be a no-ball, so it really isn't that many in the overall scheme of things.

Wicket taking deliveries are generally the most crucial in a match. There can only ever be 40 of them maximum in a Test. I think it is vital that these deliveries be legal and don't have an issue with the umpire checking if there is any doubt in their mind.

It's easy to be critical of umpires for this but be realistic.

They are expected to make a no-ball call/or otherwise on fast bowlers charging in and landing their feet within mm of the line (feet which are often moving). They are then expected to look straight up to enable them to make a decision on the ball that has just been delivered. Mistakes are going to be made in that split second, they have been and will continue to be.

So this is just a way of making sure that mistakes are eliminated from the most crucial deliveries in the match.

Is it ideal? Certainly not. Clearly it causes a lot of frustrations, especially when it is shown that the call wasn't a mm close one.

I've suggested the answer earlier on. Take the no-ball call away from the standing umpire altogether. The third umpire can make the decision, he is doing nothing else at the time of delivery. Apart from the benefit of getting no-ball calls right far more often, it then frees up the standing umpire to focus totally on the delivery and hopefully help with the accuracy of decisions.

Alleluia!!!! I've always thought this makes far more sense. Asking an umpire to look away a fraction before the ball is delivered defies logic. Who gives a shit about calling above shoulder height no balls. Stumpings and run outs are always referred.

But square leg umpires do have to call a short run. This may be where the problem lies. Maybe 3rd umpire can do this as well. Imperative standing umpire is free to call.

 

[CAS79]

Alleluia!!!! I've always thought this makes far more sense. Asking an umpire to look away a fraction before the ball is delivered defies logic. Who gives a shit about calling above shoulder height no balls. Stumpings and run outs are always referred.

But square leg umpires do have to call a short run. This may be where the problem lies. Maybe 3rd umpire can do this as well. Imperative standing umpire is free to call.

Why not.

I haven't seen a short run called at international level for years. Seen a few close calls and when give the chance the umpires not even looking anymore. You might as well have automatic check on for one short.

 

[Underarm]

another part of square leg umpires is so that there are 2 on the field, and neither are officiating the whole game on their own. test cricket is hard enough when you only have to work every second over....

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The benefit of the umpire being at the bowlers end is they reduce any risk of Zaheer Khan treading on their toes when he bats.

 

[Tiff]

That's fine in theory, until it happens to your side.

In the last test in England in 2009 (or was it 2005, I can never remember, lol), we lost 2 or 3 wickets to deliveries that were shown to be no-balls. This board was a very, very unhappy place.

Haha, I'm sure, but it's over with now. I don't care.

The thing with cricket is it comes back to get you. How many times have you seen a batsmen get given not-out on a blatant lbw, only to get clean bowled two overs later. Sure, it happens the othe way too, but that's what it's all about.

Again, how many times have you seen a couple of bad decisions made in one innings, then karma comes back and gets the other side back anyway? Look it's happening to India now with this DRS.

I know that all sounds a bit airy fairy but c'mon, only a silly man would blame a couple of bad decisions on a lost test match, when there's 150 other mini-games going on in a test match you should have won in the first place?

Am I making zero sense? I'm starting to feel that way