The new no-ball rule

[Gough]

If it's to used, be use it properly. Check every ball. A no ball is worth 1 run and another ball to the batting side, it could be argued that this would have a significant effect on the game. I don't think you can pick and choose when you use the available technology. But then where do you draw the line?

I don't mind the DRS, I don't love it, but this no ball thing is a step to far for mine.

I never though I would find myself saying this though, I am really looking forward to the Indian series happening without any of the technology, despite the ridiculous reasons for this happening.

 

[Phone]

no ball checking will still happen it's not DRS

 

[Tassieboy]

he obviously suspected it was. Hence why he reviewed it. If he knew it was a noball he would have called it like the other noballs he knew were noballs and were called noballs.

Exactly. And he wasn't confident enough to call it so he clarified. I don't see the big deal.

 

[Tassieboy]

seriously, if an umpire can't call a no-ball on sight he is hopeless.

also shits me when they go upstairs when the bloke is home by three feet these days

if umpires are incapable of calling no-balls these days and only check on wicket balls it should be taken out of their hands and made completely electronic like in tennis, so the poor dears can concentrate on more important stuff, like the light

Well, no, it's actually not the easiest thing in the world, especially considering it's not the most important thing they're caring about. You try and look at the ground then look back up and adjudicate when a bowler is bowling at 140km/h. I guarantee you many wickets would have been from no balls in the past, it's only now it is scrutinised.

Yes it does shit me too when they refer when the batsman is home by a 1m.

 

[mattymac]

Well, no, it's actually not the easiest thing in the world, especially considering it's not the most important thing they're caring about. You try and look at the ground then look back up and adjudicate when a bowler is bowling at 140km/h. I guarantee you many wickets would have been from no balls in the past, it's only now it is scrutinised.

Yes it does shit me too when they refer when the batsman is home by a 1m.

true, not the easiest thing in the world, but not too much to expect a proffessional to be able to call a noball 2 feet away. if they can't do it reliably or are scared to call due to scrutiny, we have the tech to completely take it out of their hands and give an instant call

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

If taylor was the skipper during the monkeygate series he would have been pleading for technology to be used at every opportunity, he played in an era where our team got away with murder and DID influence umpires and the generation that followed paid the political price that the warne/taylor/mcgrath era never had to pay.

Taylor obviously enjoyed a no technology era as our great team were masters of wearing down umpires until they were convinced every half arsed shout we made was plumb.

Sure looks that way in this video.

[youtube]HHzax-alxb4[/youtube]

In reality, we had to put up with garbage like that on a regular basis. Harbhajan Singh 1 wicket hat-trick anyone?

 

[frankrizzo]

Hardly a great video to post in reply, obviously there were certain places we did get screwed over in(pakstan pre neutral umpires was infamously bad) there were also many places we went where our team got away with murder.

Anyway doesn't the video you posted prove that technology puts an end to such blatantly wrong umpiring decisions?

With drs an umpire cannot cheat as his howlers can be easily overruled.

 

[The Passenger]

why not give the third umpire something to do and check every ball....

he can do it instantly, and can report it after the ball has gone to the keeper or done whatever....

give them the responsibility of no ball umpire and allow the on field umpire to simply get on to the task... i reckon against really quick bowlers it would be bloody tough job to move your eyes quick enough to view the batsmen, adjust your eyes and then make an lbw decision...

 

[Partridge]

I for one would like to see no-balls being called only by the third umpire all the time. It will allow consistency and give more time to the on field umpire to focus on the batsman.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the other obvious option.

There used to be a different no-ball rule that actually allowed all these things - the back foot rule. Made things much easier for the batsmen as the bowler hadn't delivered the ball before the call. Which also meant more batsmen could have a free hit. Plus that extra split second allowed better adjudicating as the umpire had more time to raise his eyes.

You can thank Bradman for the front foot rule. Don't see why they couldn't revert to a back foot one. Would improve everything.

 

[JimDocker]

I remember when the decision was made to move to neutral umpires, some staistics came out that showed that home umpires gave visitors out LBW more than the home nation in every country except England. The English had more LBW decisions against them than for them.

In 1970/71 when England toured here and played 6 test matches and won the series, not one Australian was given out LBW in the whole series.

Keith Stackpole was famously run out by 3 feet but given the "benefit of the doubt" when he was on 19 and going on to score a double century while the same umpire gave Boycott out with the bails being dislodged with his bat almost level with the stumps.

Australians need to be careful when criticising pre neutral umpiring.

 

[frankrizzo]

Australians need to be careful when criticising pre neutral umpiring.

When i was critiquing umpiring from those days i certainly wasn't excusing Australia or it's umps, i fully understand just how average some of our home umps were and how frustrated many teams felt after trips to Australia.

Home umps though had also become a political issue, irregardless of umpire performance many teams simply expected to get ripped off away from home and the quality of umping good or bad had little impact on shaping their views.

Same as today we need drs for political reasons as much as cricketing, it helps end end major error's but also the player/fan/officials perceptions that major mistakes are committed against one team and not the other.

 

[Furn]

true, not the easiest thing in the world, but not too much to expect a proffessional to be able to call a noball 2 feet away. if they can't do it reliably or are scared to call due to scrutiny, we have the tech to completely take it out of their hands and give an instant call

More like 3-4 metres away and on the completely wrong angle, can hard to judge a call that has a cm or 2 in it from there. Also have to judge if the player landed behind and slid over and the crease line is usually worn away in the foot marks.

Just have the third ump watch at close up live camera on the line and have a button he presses and a buzzer and light go off. Since its a no ball doesn't matter if it distracts the batsman.

 

[sherb]

I remember when the decision was made to move to neutral umpires, some staistics came out that showed that home umpires gave visitors out LBW more than the home nation in every country except England. The English had more LBW decisions against them than for them.

In 1970/71 when England toured here and played 6 test matches and won the series, not one Australian was given out LBW in the whole series.

Keith Stackpole was famously run out by 3 feet but given the "benefit of the doubt" when he was on 19 and going on to score a double century while the same umpire gave Boycott out with the bails being dislodged with his bat almost level with the stumps.

Australians need to be careful when criticising pre neutral umpiring.

3 feet? More like an inch or two, with Stackpole literally going at full bore.

Whatever the inconsistency with Boycott, the umpire (it would have Brooks or Rowan) made an understandable call with Stackpole.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

why not give the third umpire something to do and check every ball....

he can do it instantly, and can report it after the ball has gone to the keeper or done whatever....

give them the responsibility of no ball umpire and allow the on field umpire to simply get on to the task... i reckon against really quick bowlers it would be bloody tough job to move your eyes quick enough to view the batsmen, adjust your eyes and then make an lbw decision...

This!!!! I've been saying the same thing for a while now. Seems so obvious to me.

 

[Underarm]

im not sure how instant it would be. especially if Dussey is ripping through his overs......

 

[Le Class]

It would have got Warney his first test 100 if they had a second look........

 

[dajesmac]

I apologise for my ignorance as I don't get to see alot of tv cricket, but what is the new rule?

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I apologise for my ignorance as I don't get to see alot of tv cricket, but what is the new rule?

It's not that new, but if an umpire feels a no ball decision was too close to call, he can ask the 3rd umpire to take a look if a wicket falls on that delivery. The batsman is told to wait and is then called back to the crease if it's proven to be a no ball.

 

[ROOTA#6]

I don't like it. If they can't call it at the time bad luck. Also it has massive impact on games. First of all they miss the no ball and a wicket falls, the wicket is cancelled out and a run is added so there is a little mometum shift. I would also like to go back to the fact that a run is scored. If they are missing/not calling no balls on wicket taking deliveries and having to check them, how many are they missing throughout a day/innings. Close games can come down to 1,2,3 or so runs

 

[dr nick]

It's not that new, but if an umpire feels a no ball decision was too close to call, he can ask the 3rd umpire to take a look if a wicket falls on that delivery. The batsman is told to wait and is then called back to the crease if it's proven to be a no ball.

This leads to umpires undercalling no-balls.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

This rule is continuing to frustrate me. Gould has gone up stairs twice today when on both occasions it was clearly a legit delivery.

Maybe being a little precious but it disrupts the momentum and excitement of taking a wicket.

 

[ROOTA#6]

This rule is continuing to frustrate me. Gould has gone up stairs twice today when on both occasions it was clearly a legit delivery.

Maybe being a little precious but it disrupts the momentum and excitement of taking a wicket.

Couldn't agree with you more

 

[Truckosaurus]

Checking again. Come on, already.

 

[Underarm]

This rule is continuing to frustrate me. Gould has gone up stairs twice today when on both occasions it was clearly a legit delivery.

Maybe being a little precious but it disrupts the momentum and excitement of taking a wicket.

It didnt take long, and if he got it wrong the uproar would be so much worse.

 

[Saints_Supporter]

This rule is continuing to frustrate me. Gould has gone up stairs twice today when on both occasions it was clearly a legit delivery.

Maybe being a little precious but it disrupts the momentum and excitement of taking a wicket.

Both umpires today seemed a little unsure and began second guessing themselves.They both sent some very obvious non-no balls upstairs.