Dropped Catch Ashes Decider

hope that idiot Bung Lee is not giving our bowlers tips on their run-ups in the nets

Obviously it's an ICC directive to stop paying so much attention to no balls live. They figure it's easy enough to check for them if a wicket falls so it's better to put more time into concentrating on what's happening at the batsman's end. But for goodness sake, how many extra runs are the bowlers getting away with conceding? I reckon on average about 10 no balls a day are going unpunished. That's not insignificant. And if they're called a few times, they'll make an effort to stay behind the line. As it is they only realise how close they are when they take a wicket and the replay shows it's a no ball. At Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, the crowd in line with the front line was constantly and correctly calling the Australian bowler's no balls. What embarrassment for the umpires.

Henry wrote:Obviously it's an ICC directive to stop paying so much attention to no balls live. They figure it's easy enough to check for them if a wicket falls so it's better to put more time into concentrating on what's happening at the batsman's end. But for goodness sake, how many extra runs are the bowlers getting away with conceding? I reckon on average about 10 no balls a day are going unpunished. That's not insignificant. And if they're called a few times, they'll make an effort to stay behind the line. As it is they only realise how close they are when they take a wicket and the replay shows it's a no ball. At Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, the crowd in line with the front line was constantly and correctly calling the Australian bowler's no balls. What embarrassment for the umpires.

ODI's and T20s are a bigger problem than tests, given that the penalty is a free hit.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Obviously it's an ICC directive to stop paying so much attention to no balls live. They figure it's easy enough to check for them if a wicket falls so it's better to put more time into concentrating on what's happening at the batsman's end. But for goodness sake, how many extra runs are the bowlers getting away with conceding? I reckon on average about 10 no balls a day are going unpunished. That's not insignificant. And if they're called a few times, they'll make an effort to stay behind the line. As it is they only realise how close they are when they take a wicket and the replay shows it's a no ball. At Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, the crowd in line with the front line was constantly and correctly calling the Australian bowler's no balls. What embarrassment for the umpires.

ODI's and T20s are a bigger problem than tests, given that the penalty is a free hit.

But the umpires are more observant in ODIs and T20s. In tests they just don't bother to look properly.

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Obviously it's an ICC directive to stop paying so much attention to no balls live. They figure it's easy enough to check for them if a wicket falls so it's better to put more time into concentrating on what's happening at the batsman's end. But for goodness sake, how many extra runs are the bowlers getting away with conceding? I reckon on average about 10 no balls a day are going unpunished. That's not insignificant. And if they're called a few times, they'll make an effort to stay behind the line. As it is they only realise how close they are when they take a wicket and the replay shows it's a no ball. At Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, the crowd in line with the front line was constantly and correctly calling the Australian bowler's no balls. What embarrassment for the umpires.

ODI's and T20s are a bigger problem than tests, given that the penalty is a free hit.

But the umpires are more observant in ODIs and T20s. In tests they just don't bother to look properly.

So the ICC tells the same umpires to be more observant of no balls in ODIs and T20s? Doesn't that affect their efficiency at the business end?

The umpire's reason would be that if they call a no ball straight away and a batsman is dismissed, but replays then show it WASN'T a no ball, the batsman can't then be given out based on the tiny possibility he changed his shot because of the no ball call, as unlikely (indeed almost impossible) as that is.

Personally, I hate these replays to check if a no ball has been bowled. These days, I'm wary of it after every dismissal and there's a feeling of dread that the umpire is going to ask for a replay. It ruins the spontaneity of the wicket celebration.

Henry wrote:The umpire's reason would be that if they call a no ball straight away and a batsman is dismissed, but replays then show it WASN'T a no ball, the batsman can't then be given out based on the tiny possibility he changed his shot because of the no ball call, as unlikely (indeed almost impossible) as that is.

Personally, I hate these replays to check if a no ball has been bowled. These days, I'm wary of it after every dismissal and there's a feeling of dread that the umpire is going to ask for a replay. It ruins the spontaneity of the wicket celebration.

So at least call the blatant ones.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:The umpire's reason would be that if they call a no ball straight away and a batsman is dismissed, but replays then show it WASN'T a no ball, the batsman can't then be given out based on the tiny possibility he changed his shot because of the no ball call, as unlikely (indeed almost impossible) as that is.

Personally, I hate these replays to check if a no ball has been bowled. These days, I'm wary of it after every dismissal and there's a feeling of dread that the umpire is going to ask for a replay. It ruins the spontaneity of the wicket celebration.

So at least call the blatant ones.

Indeed. And don't ask the third umpire to check for a no ball when half the bowler's f*cking foot is behind the line.

The back foot rule did of course work for a long time, was easier for umpires to adjudicate, and was only really undermined by "dragging". My impression is that most fast bowlers currently have their back foot well behind the back line leading up to delivery, even if their front foot subsequently threatens the front line on occasions ... these balls would not have been called as 'no balls' in the past. I'd like to see consideration of a re-jig of the no-ball law that might make things a little easier for the umpires (and perhaps for fast bowlers trying to get their run up right). This could begin with analysis of some of the no-balls called (and not called) during the recent series.

My thoughts would be ... if the back foot were to land and remain totally BEHIND the back line leading up to delivery (no drag over the line permitted) I think this should always be a legitimate delivery, even if the front foot were then to go a bit over the front line. This modification of the rule would make things easier for the umpire adjudicating on the faster bowlers, and I don't think it would make things much harder for batsmen. I really don't see so much of an issue of watching the front line when it comes to umpiring spinners ... again, if EITHER the whole of the back foot remains behind the back line before delivery OR some part of the front foot remains behind the front line at the point of delivery, it would remain a legitimate delivery.

Just a thought. Or would it be totally unreasonable to restore some meaning to the term 'bowling crease'?

Re: para 2. Look out! Here comes the 2m50 quick!


I went through a phase of thinking a "cyclops" beeper might automatically call no-balls. But it was abolished in tennis, as a distraction, as not error-proof. So as you were.

It's surely not beyond the wit of man to set up the "cyclops type bleeper" to alert only the third umpire - who could instantly inform the on-field official to make the call. It doesn't have to distract anyone on the field.

Lardy, they seem reasonable thoughts to me with regards to the bowling crease. The laws should be enforced, changed or scrapped ...... not just routinely ignored as happens now with no-balls until a possible dismissal.