Front Foot No Balls

Mick Sawyer wrote:"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?

Something along the lines of Zat's suggestion. There are probably stats somewhere to confirm the number of appeals made and the proportion upheld.

Basil wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"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?

Something along the lines of Zat's suggestion. There are probably stats somewhere to confirm the number of appeals made and the proportion upheld.

Mate - I do find that amazing - just confirms that you can't please some of the people at any time.

Baz I wonder if the unpopularity was in someway due to a lack of cameras or the quality of the hardware?

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Basil wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"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?

Something along the lines of Zat's suggestion. There are probably stats somewhere to confirm the number of appeals made and the proportion upheld.

Mate - I do find that amazing - just confirms that you can't please some of the people at any time.

Given that the trial was in county cricket, I'm really biting my lip not to make some sort of jibe about whingeing Poms...

"I'm really biting my lip not to make some sort of jibe about whingeing Poms..."

Admirable restraint son ...... not a word got out

The following relates to the Poms scrapping the referral system. Seems that the hardware in use was half arsed, the players & umps just didn't embrace it.



Durham v Hampshire, FP Trophy final, Lord's

Captains against referrals

Andrew McGlashan at Lord's

August 18, 2007



Phil Mustard was too late asking for a referral © Getty Images


Although Dale Benkenstein and Shane Warne were captains with very different emotions when play was abandoned in the Friends Provident final they agreed that third umpire referrals haven't worked in this year's tournament.

During Durham's innings there was an occasion where each side could have used the system with some justification. Phil Mustard, batting well on 49, was trapped lbw by James Bruce. However, replays showed the ball pitched a fraction outside leg stump but by the time Mustard asked for a referral it was based on footage from the dressing room.

Then, with Shivnarine Chanderpaul on 17, Chris Tremlett had a good shout for lbw turned down and this time the replays looked in favour of the bowler. But Warne didn't opt to use the third umpire, and said that he had discussed the issue with Benkenstein before the match.

"Both of us spoke at the start and we think if there was something obvious that would be the only way we'd refer it otherwise that's what the umpires are there to do," before adding that he didn't think the technology was up to standard. "When you get the technology 100% that's when you can use referrals, until it's three dimensional and you see it from every angle there's no point using it."

Benkenstein was equally lukewarm in his appraisal of the system, which hasn't seen a single decision overturned during the televised matches of the tournament. "It just doesn't work," he said. "Every time you refer something it doesn't get overturned. I think they need to use all the technology and if they are going to do it, do it 100%.

"And the umpires and players must buy into it. At the moment it's being done half-heartedly. The third umpires just keeping backing the onfield umpires. The umpires have to agree it's not a negative thing and don't see it as guys belittling their decision."

Andrew McGlashan is a staff writer on Cricinfo

I remember Chris Adams being interviewed after a game when a decision had been overturned, it might even have been the first time that a referral had been requested. Adams is no shrinking violet, but he made a comment to the effect that it did not seem right to question the on-field umpire's decision.

Basil wrote:I remember Chris Adams being interviewed after a game when a decision had been overturned, it might even have been the first time that a referral had been requested. Adams is no shrinking violet, but he made a comment to the effect that it did not seem right to question the on-field umpire's decision.

It's funny you know. An umpire can't give someone out unless there is an appeal. Players have no problem undermining the on-field umpire's authority with countless frivilous appeals. But heaven forbid they ask for a second opinion from someone with more evidence at his disposal.

The challenge system would work in international cricket because the stakes are amazingly high. Umpires cop enough flak if they get the decision wrong using the naked eye. But to get it wrong after being allowed to view a replay - that would be something else. As a result, third umpires will overturn decisions if they are incorrect. To not do so would only make them more unpopular.

Cheers.

Back to the no-ball topic. Tubby, Nicolarse and Greigy did a good piece during a break in the cricket today. Tubby summed up my frustration when he observed that bowlers mark out their run-ups to the nearest millimetre to ensure they land with just 2 mm of their boot behind the line but make no allowances for wind, slope, tiredness, injury, dodgy meals, bad gas, period pain, etc, etc. So inevitably, any small outside influence causes them to overstep. Therefore, why not measure their run-up to have their front foot cutting the front line clearly with half their foot behind the line (as Mikey Holding did his whole career)? It annoys the bejesus out of me. 4 wickets have fallen to no-balls in 1 and a half Tests (Aus v India). I watched Bung do it live twice during his memorable 4-200 effort v India at the SCG last time the Indians toured. Farkin thick fast bowlers.

Just stick an electric shock system in place where if the blighter oversteps he gets frazzled. That'll stop it quick smart.

I've never understood how it can be so difficult to keep your foot behind a line? It winds me up something cronic when any of my team do it.

As you say, Mikey Holding had the idea right. And that extra half a cm makes a huge difference in pace douesn't it.


Referral system:
Wouldn't work. It goes to far against the fabric of the game, whereby the umpires decision is final IMO. Incessant appealling is ansking a question, its irritating but within the spirit. Basically doubting an umpire would be if not a referral dissent normally.

As for the 3rd umpire following the no-ball, again, if it won't work in a levels of the game, I'm not a fan!

Make the crease wider, and give the bowler the benefit of the doubt so long as some part of the bowler's boot is on the line

Basil wrote:Make the crease wider, and give the bowler the benefit of the doubt so long as some part of the bowler's boot is on or behind the line

sounds very fair

Basil wrote:Make the crease wider, and give the bowler the benefit of the doubt so long as some part of the bowler's boot is on the line

That won't hold up for too long Baz. In ten years time someone will want the crease widened even further.

From the moment I become (benevolent) dictator of the world the following will come into effect:

No Balls
*The third umpire to adjudicate on front foot no balls allowing the central ump to concentrate where it mattters more
*Any No Ball to be an automatic 3 runs plus whatever else might be scored off the delivery. The 3 runs to count against the bowler.
*Following a No Ball the next delivery is to be a free hit to the batsmen with no alteration of the field allowed.


Appeals/Challenges
*Each batsmen to be allowed 1 challenge per innings.
*The bowling team to be allowed one challenge for each batsman.
*The challenge must be issued before the next ball is bowled. The fielding side is limited to 30 seconds in which to lodge the challenge
*The decision must be made by the central ump with the aid of audio (which they should have anyway) & a little 10 inch screen device that is carried out in the middle.

There - topical matters sorted.

What about peace in the Middle East, Mick? Come on, don't stop now you've sorted the hard stuff...

I suggest consulting an orthopaedist.

Zat wrote:What about peace in the Middle East, Mick? Come on, don't stop now you've sorted the hard stuff...

Oh? Yeah I forgot that one. Really quite easy. We do a world wide survey. Anyone with a vested interest has to stick their hand up. Those people are then locked up together & when the screamming stops we have ME peace.

Move the crease 1 inch further forward.

I think the "no part of the foot behind the line" bit is to help the umpire. If he can see the line when the foot lands then it's a no-ball.

In the current batsman friendly environment i would be unwilling to change any law to the disadvantage of the bowlers.

Certainly the law which requires the bails to be completely detached from the stumps when deciding if a batsman is out (run out or stumped) should be changed so that he is out when any part of the bail is detached.