Solution to the no-ball problem

[Retzlaff]

Following the embarrassing Adam Voges situation, there have been a number of potential solutions floated to solve the issue of the adjudication of no balls.

Some have suggested increased technological oversight, while Darren Lehmann has suggested that the square-leg umpire be responsible for no ball decisions.

I think that the problem is best solved by attacking the problem at the source - and that is discouraging bowlers from bowling no balls. A bowler like James Pattinson continually pushes the boundaries and if there was a harsher penalty, I think we'd see a vast reduction in the number of no balls delivered.

Currently the laws state that for 'above the waist' no balls, the bowler is suspended from bowling during that particular innings upon the third instance of a no ball. If this was similarly applied for 'front foot' no balls, I think we'd see a dramatic reduction in 'front foot' no balls and hence reduce the number of (potentially wrong) decisions which need to be adjudicated.

Thoughts?

 

[Underdog]

Is this really a problem?

 

[Damon_3388]

Is this really a problem?

No.

It's like a lot of things nowdays - greater coverage and discussion, particularly with video and the Internet, make it seem like a much bigger deal than it actually is.

 

[Underdog]

Back foot no ball. Simple

What difference does it make? Players will still push the boundaries.

 

[JackOutback]

Is this really a problem?

I think it's a problem that players keep doing it, potentially costing their team wickets; I don't think the officiating of it is a problem as such (though anything that makes it simpler is fine). Personally, I'm a fan of increasing the penalty for a no ball to four runs, they would stop pretty damn quick. Look at the Big Bash, where the penalty is a free hit; how many no balls were there throughout the tournament?

 

[eth-dog]

Or you could leave as is, because it works, and have the 3rd umpire watch the video on the line every ball and telling the on field ump whether or not it was a no-ball.

 

[Damon_3388]

Or you could leave as is, because it works, and have the 3rd umpire watch the video on the line every ball and telling the on field ump whether or not it was a no-ball.

Thus pushing the field umpire further toward being a glorified messenger boy and hat and jumper rack.

 

[Teen Wolf]

 

[Stopher]

Thus pushing the field umpire further toward being a glorified messenger boy and hat and jumper rack.

Nah, while they still make calls on LBW which is a huge part of cricket, they will be anything but that. So many no-ball calls are missed now though, so why not just remove this from the umpire's list of duties and let him focus on the more important end? They show slow-mo replays for EVERYTHING now, so why not do a quick one after each delivery and just inform the umpire via earpiece if there is an 'overstep'?

All the tools are already there, now ****ing use them!

 

[frankrizzo]

Thus pushing the field umpire further toward being a glorified messenger boy and hat and jumper rack.

I don't see how we can say they are glorified messenger boy and hat and jumper racks right now anyway when the biggest sook about drs is that it protects the on field umpires original call too much, what the on field umpire decides real time at the batsman's end is still vital but maybe not having to worry so much about the bowlers end might mean they get more of those original calls spot on.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Back foot no ball. Simple

That would only re-introduce a new problem ..... the reason why it reverted to front foot. I had a so-called no-ball problem when I played until a coach came along and showed me how to measure a run up properly. The "problem" cleared up overnight.

So far as a current "problem" is concerned, there isn't one. An umpire calls a no-ball, it's a no-ball. That's it. The quicker we revert to accepting the umpire's call, the better the game will be. Technology is the problem, not the umpires.

 

[KangarooUnicorn]

That would only re-introduce a new problem ..... the reason why it reverted to front foot. I had a so-called no-ball problem when I played until a coach came along and showed me how to measure a run up properly. The "problem" cleared up overnight.

So far as a current "problem" is concerned, there isn't one. An umpire calls a no-ball, it's a no-ball. That's it. The quicker we revert to accepting the umpire's call, the better the game will be. Technology is the problem, not the umpires.

Well said. Being able to re-watch in slow motion replay is drawing attention to mistakes that are often over tiny measurements.

As a side note, disputing an umpires decision is against the "spirit of cricket". Does that mean the DRS system is encouraging younger players to to play the game in the wrong way?

 

[damochandler]

Bowlers should stop bowling no balls in the nets. Simple solution

 

[Taylor]

No.

It's like a lot of things nowdays - greater coverage and discussion, particularly with video and the Internet, make it seem like a much bigger deal than it actually is.

In this situation it is also being used to avoid discussion on the actual issue - NZ's batting isn't up to Test standard.

 

[strewthcobber]

In this situation it is also being used to avoid discussion on the actual issue - NZ's batting isn't up to Test standard.

Their bowlers have got twenty wickets twice agaiant Aus in 20 tests, so there's a bit of an issue there as well.

 

[Taylor]

Their bowlers have got twenty wickets twice agaiant Aus in 20 tests, so there's a bit of an issue there as well.

We could amalgamate our teams and be invincible.

 

[JackOutback]

Bowlers should stop bowling no balls in the nets. Simple solution

Agreed, far too many ignore the crease at training at all levels.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Hardy think there is a problem with no balls.
In the 6 tests played in Australia this summer and the one test in new zealand so far there has been 2043 overs bowled or 12'258 balls bowled and there has been 75 No balls bowled in those 7 tests.
The media should of focused on the umpire and not make out there is some issue with no balls because there clearly is not any issue what so ever.

 

[strewthcobber]

Hardy think there is a problem with no balls.
In the 6 tests played in Australia this summer and the one test in new zealand so far there has been 2043 overs bowled or 12'258 balls bowled and there has been 75 No balls bowled in those 7 tests.
The media should of focused on the umpire and not make out there is some issue with no balls because there clearly is not any issue what so ever.

While I agree, at least 3 of those were called incorrectly (from the last test) and an unknown but presumably large number were never detected or called.

ICC needs to do a study and determine how many no balls are currently being missed (easy to do, just watch the film).

 

[strewthcobber]

Hardy think there is a problem with no balls.
In the 6 tests played in Australia this summer and the one test in new zealand so far there has been 2043 overs bowled or 12'258 balls bowled and there has been 75 No balls bowled in those 7 tests.
The media should of focused on the umpire and not make out there is some issue with no balls because there clearly is not any issue what so ever.

And just to note, that even if the umpires get 99.9% of the no ball calls correct over the summer, that still means they'll get 10 wrong. We do need to have appropriate expectations odlf what being "right" means.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[The Speaker]

In this situation it is also being used to avoid discussion on the actual issue - NZ's batting isn't up to Test standard.

No. They don't have much depth beyond their best XI, but that's a long way from not being 'Test standard'.

 

[Taylor]

No. They don't have much depth beyond their best XI, but that's a long way from not being 'Test standard'.

I disagree. I think they have a really good one day side playing 5 days.

 

[The Speaker]

I disagree. I think they have a really good one day side playing 5 days.

No, they have a really good limited overs side that is a decent Test team, reliant on their bowling but far from 'not Test standard'.

Here are their Test innings over the past year:

523, 220, 350, 8/454d, 317, 295, 624, 2/104, 202, 208, 431, 3/267d, 237, 5/189, 183, 327.

Those are not the scores of a side that can't bat. Their averages hold up at Test level, and they win Tests. Not one part of that suggests 'not Test standard', unless your 'Test standard' is unreasonably high and not actually about Test matches.

 

[Taylor]

No, they have a really good limited overs side that is a decent Test team, reliant on their bowling but far from 'not Test standard'.

Here are their Test innings over the past year:

523, 220, 350, 8/454d, 317, 295, 624, 2/104, 202, 208, 431, 3/267d, 237, 5/189, 183, 327.

Those are not the scores of a side that can't bat. Their averages hold up at Test level, and they win Tests. Not one part of that suggests 'not Test standard', unless your 'Test standard' is unreasonably high and not actually about Test matches.

I will concede that my standard for test match capability is measured against a very average version of the Australian side (about to be #1 Test side in the world) but I don't think our current side matches it with other number one teams.

It is entirely subjective. NZ have the best batsman in the world.

 

[The Speaker]

I will concede that my standard for test match capability is measured against a very average version of the Australian side (about to be #1 Test side in the world) but I don't think our current side matches it with other number one teams.

It is entirely subjective. NZ have the best batsman in the world.

Our batting line-up is unimpressive compared to the lofty heights of the golden era, yet still Test standard.

There are teams that don't even play Test cricket - Ireland chief amongst them, but not alone - that have Test standard batting line-ups. The only thing required for a Test standard batting line-up is that they can last five days. Different teams will have different ways of achieving this, but they don't need to be world beaters to do it.