Time to do away with umpires?

We now have reached the stage that every wicket taking delivery is referred to the no ball test. If they are not capable of calling the no ball they shouldn't be out there.

And Tucker also farked up the stumping yesterday.

If you do away with the guys on the ground you just get "Tucker" making EVERY decision ...


































...and who would hold the bowler's hat

Either that or every ball should be checked

Surely no balls from non wicket deliveries could make a major difference in a tight match.

About the stumping, why not have a 1000 fps ultramotion camera focusing there? If it's viable, it could eliminate this between frames bullshit, and it really is a bit of a waste if they just show batsmen draining their sweat instead of something more useful. Then again, all depends on the viability.

Here you go Red.

In fairness, picking up every no ball (and knowing for absolute sure that some millimetre of the foot was behind the line) is a difficult call.

If you are that condemnatory of umpires, you might similarly say, if a bowler can't deliver every single ball legitimately, he shouldn't be playing Test cricket.


Maybe they SHOULD have a "beep" signal for overstepping! - Not really.


As it is, I'm not sure the video evidence is responsible for that much exasperation in a crowd (though to the fielding side, certainly). It definitely injects more tension and drama into the piece, so doesn't seem altogether a bad thing. 50/50 at worst.

tricycle wrote:Surely no balls from non wicket deliveries could make a major difference in a tight match.

About the stumping, why not have a 1000 fps ultramotion camera focusing there? If it's viable, it could eliminate this between frames bullshit, and it really is a bit of a waste if they just show batsmen draining their sweat instead of something more useful. Then again, all depends on the viability.

on the first point, yes. they can probably have the third ump looking at a specific 'no-ball telly' thats just a stationary camera zoomed in at the creases. let the third ump earn his money

as for the second, probably cost. its terribly expensive to install that for something that might be used once in maybe 3-4 matches (or 15-20 days). on decisions that are so close its probably not worth it, just give the doubt to the batsman (yes i know thats not part of the written laws)

The One wrote:

tricycle wrote:Surely no balls from non wicket deliveries could make a major difference in a tight match.

About the stumping, why not have a 1000 fps ultramotion camera focusing there? If it's viable, it could eliminate this between frames bullshit, and it really is a bit of a waste if they just show batsmen draining their sweat instead of something more useful. Then again, all depends on the viability.

on the first point, yes. they can probably have the third ump looking at a specific 'no-ball telly' thats just a stationary camera zoomed in at the creases. let the third ump earn his money

as for the second, probably cost. its terribly expensive to install that for something that might be used once in maybe 3-4 matches (or 15-20 days). on decisions that are so close its probably not worth it, just give the doubt to the batsman (yes i know thats not part of the written laws)

Rod Tucker doesn't understand the unwritten law.

he doesnt seem to understand the written law either

It's quite funny seeing taipan question someone else's knowledge of the laws

At the risk of sounding like Richie Benaud, bring back the back-foot no-ball law.

Hass wrote:At the risk of sounding like Richie Benaud, bring back the back-foot no-ball law.

It was scrapped for a very good reason.