Front Foot No Balls

I watched most of the Boxing Day test in a pub at the beach. Not only was I able to combine two of my fondest pastimes but it also meant that I listened to the TV commentary rather than my usual practice of muting & taking the radio audio. To my pleasant surprise I heard a rational new (to me ) idea from Bill Lawrie. Any No Ball to be penalised with 4 runs against the bowler & the batsman to receive a "free hit" next ball. IMHO, guaranteed to straighten out a few culprits.

While I'm on it - when are they going to hand over (at international level) the job of policing a no ball to the lounge lizard. Surely to heavens we'd get better umppiring outcomes if they didn't have to switch focus.

Why not go to a simple back-foot no-ball rule?

If the back foot touches the line at any stage of the delivery stride, it's a no-ball. The umpire woul have a much better view of the back foot landing than he currently has of the front foot, he'd have more time to change focus to the ball after the foot was placed, and the batsman would have more time to react to the call.

Zat wrote:Why not go to a simple back-foot no-ball rule?

If the back foot touches the line at any stage of the delivery stride, it's a no-ball. The umpire woul have a much better view of the back foot landing than he currently has of the front foot, he'd have more time to change focus to the ball after the foot was placed, and the batsman would have more time to react to the call.

From what I've read the back foot rule was no "simple" affair & hence the change to the "simple" front foot rule. You get into the umps having to make judgements about whether the ball had left the hand before the foot touched the line crap - HTF are they suppposed to watch the hand & the foot at the same time?

Mick Sawyer wrote:From what I've read the back foot rule was no "simple" affair & hence the change to the "simple" front foot rule. You get into the umps having to make judgements about whether the ball had left the hand before the foot touched the line crap - HTF are they suppposed to watch the hand & the foot at the same time?

My suggestion is - as far as I'm aware - not a return to the old rule.

I'm suggesting a combination of the current front-foot rule styling with elements of the old back-foot rule. If the bowler isn't allowed to touch the crease at all with the back foot during the delivery stride, it means that as soon as that foot's ben lifted off the ground, it doesn't realy matter when in the stride the ball is released.

Zat wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:From what I've read the back foot rule was no "simple" affair & hence the change to the "simple" front foot rule. You get into the umps having to make judgements about whether the ball had left the hand before the foot touched the line crap - HTF are they suppposed to watch the hand & the foot at the same time?

My suggestion is - as far as I'm aware - not a return to the old rule.

I'm suggesting a combination of the current front-foot rule styling with elements of the old back-foot rule. If the bowler isn't allowed to touch the crease at all with the back foot during the delivery stride, it means that as soon as that foot's ben lifted off the ground, it doesn't realy matter when in the stride the ball is released.

Understood - do we then get blokes hopping down the wicket on their front foot & letting rip from two metres? /

That'd be hella funny!

Zat wrote:That'd be hella funny!

yep - & that's why Laws always get annoyingly complex - dickheads like me paid to find a way through them.

The front foot rule has the advantage of objectivity & keeping the bowler a fair distance back. What's lost relative to the former rule as we know is the free hit element that was designed to punish the bowler. I really like the anticipation and tactical intrigue of the free whack next ball regime.

2 runs would be enough of a penalty.

Do that 10 times in a day and you will have bowled an extra 2 overs and gone for at least a bonus 20 runs(plus whatever was scored off the no ball).

please don't yell wrote:2 runs would be enough of a penalty.

Do that 10 times in a day and you will have bowled an extra 2 overs and gone for at least a bonus 20 runs(plus whatever was scored off the no ball).

What about the lounge lizards adjudicating?

I think we should be able to choose what shot the batsmen has to play next playstation style.

please don't yell wrote:I think we should be able to choose what shot the batsmen has to play next playstation style.

Now that could be funny!

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Zat wrote:That'd be hella funny!

yep - & that's why Laws always get annoyingly complex - dickheads like me paid to find a way through them.

The front foot rule has the advantage of objectivity & keeping the bowler a fair distance back. What's lost relative to the former rule as we know is the free hit element that was designed to punish the bowler. I really like the anticipation and tactical intrigue of the free whack next ball regime.

I do think the term 'delivery stride' may actually rule out any sort of 'hopping' manoeuvre though.

I don't particularly like the introduction of anything at international level that can't easily be replicated at club and state level, so not in favour of the third umpire ruling on no balls.

"I do think the term 'delivery stride' may actually rule out any sort of 'hopping' manoeuvre though"

Cool.

"I don't particularly like the introduction of anything at international level that can't easily be replicated at club and state level, so not in favour of the third umpire ruling on no balls."

Mate - it's already there - there are no third umpires in club cricket.

Yep, but handing even more power to off-field officials is not the way to go IMO. I would actually prefer the 'challenge' system (I've said this before). You obviously watch some NFL, I think the system in place there works well.

Zat wrote:Yep, but handing even more power to off-field officials is not the way to go IMO. I would actually prefer the 'challenge' system (I've said this before). You obviously watch some NFL, I think the system in place there works well.

I'm only asking for the TV ump to look at the monitor and call No balls therefore allowing the bloke counting the balls to be focused where it matters.

The challenge system? I do like it in tennis - it addresses issues like the line ump being obscured & the central ump too far away. In the NFL - yep, it's preferable to every bloody thing being referred with errors remaining rampant. You've got me Zat, iIf you don't want to decentralise the power any further, how would you cricket challenge system work?

Given that it's seeminglyu inevitable that the men in the middle will effectively have their power reduced over time because more technology will be used (not saying I like it) I think there should be three unsuccessful challenges allowed per team per innings.

If your challenge is successful, then you keep it in the bank, if your challenge is unsuccessful, then you lose it.

Zat wrote:Given that it's seeminglyu inevitable that the men in the middle will effectively have their power reduced over time because more technology will be used (not saying I like it) I think there should be three unsuccessful challenges allowed per team per innings.

If your challenge is successful, then you keep it in the bank, if your challenge is unsuccessful, then you lose it.

Hear what you're saying re the undesired inevitability - hence my view on making the central umps job easier by taking away the No ball job.

The challenge thing - yeah, I'm OK with that but the challenge must be immediate ( & that won't cure the angst of the Mudge types when one of the backroom TV boys discover some obscure angle 10 minutes later) & it needs to be ruled on by the ump in the middle.

I have no problem with the central ump being the one, use a hood on the boundary if you like.

There should be a time limit on the decision, say two minutes from the first replay starting.

And there should be no referrals at all from the central umpire to the third ump.

"There should be a time limit on the decision, say two minutes from the first replay starting" and the time in which it has to be lodged - must be before the next ball & therefore the challenge would have to come from the batsman rather than the shed, which might then bring on a new dynamic with the 5 & 6 bitching that the first 4 chew up all the challenge chips.

I reckon we've got it sorted Mick. Have a good one, and don't work too hard!

I agree 100% with the challenge system discussed above. Seems there's an increasing number of people in favour of it. Just wish the idiotic cricket authorities would get on and introduce it.

And on the no-ball rule: I like Bill's proposal as well, and Mick's addendum of handing the no-balls off to the 3rd umpire is a great one. Combined, I reckon it would kill no-balls in very short order.

On the 'free hit' issue though - what's to stop a bowler just bowling it a meter down legside? If its a wide, would they get another 'free hit' delivery?

Zat wrote:I reckon we've got it sorted Mick. Have a good one, and don't work too hard!

Cheers mate

Leo wrote:I agree 100% with the challenge system discussed above. Seems there's an increasing number of people in favour of it. Just wish the idiotic cricket authorities would get on and introduce it.

And on the no-ball rule: I like Bill's proposal as well, and Mick's addendum of handing the no-balls off to the 3rd umpire is a great one. Combined, I reckon it would kill no-balls in very short order.

On the 'free hit' issue though - what's to stop a bowler just bowling it a meter down legside? If its a wide, would they get another 'free hit' delivery?

Thanks Leo. On the free hit delivery ( & I should have added that the field cannot be altered) - a wide would have to be rebowled as a free hit.

Free hit - good idea, works well in our domestic one-day games.

Referrals - tried this season - not popular with the players or the umpires- consequently binned.

Fiddle with the run penalty for no-balls if you like, but just as telling a punishment would be to do away with the requirement to bowl an extra ball. So every over would consist of six balls irresoective of the number of no-balls bowled.

"Referrals - tried this season - not popular with the players or the umpires- consequently binned"

The players bit is s a surprise Baz ............... was the appeal system along the lines of that discussed here?