mukka on the front foot

lardbucket wrote:How on earth is the square leg umpire supposed to call front foot no balls? Is the suggestion that the third umpire advises the square leg umpire? I don't get this ... having done loads of umpiring I really can't see how the square leg can do it accurately in real time.

It can't be down unless he is square with the bowling crease, but then he won't be at square leg.

... so a third umpire on the field is being suggested?

lardbucket wrote:... so a third umpire on the field is being suggested?

I have no knowledge of Boof's thought processes.

This is a role for the fourth umpire (which at present, must be the cushiest job in world sport), to monitor no-balls with the benefit of fixed cameras set up independently of the host broadcaster.

Basil wrote:This is a role for the fourth umpire (which at present, must be the cushiest job in world sport), to monitor no-balls with the benefit of fixed cameras set up independently of the host broadcaster.

It'd be a piece of piss, really - you've got a camera trained on both creases, both sides of the wicket, with a buzzer ready in front of the 3rd umpire, which will sound into the standing umpire's ear. Crisis solved.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Basil wrote:This is a role for the fourth umpire (which at present, must be the cushiest job in world sport), to monitor no-balls with the benefit of fixed cameras set up independently of the host broadcaster.

It'd be a piece of piss, really - you've got a camera trained on both creases, both sides of the wicket, with a buzzer ready in front of the 3rd umpire, which will sound into the standing umpire's ear. Crisis solved.

Exactly.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Basil wrote:This is a role for the fourth umpire (which at present, must be the cushiest job in world sport), to monitor no-balls with the benefit of fixed cameras set up independently of the host broadcaster.

It'd be a piece of piss, really - you've got a camera trained on both creases, both sides of the wicket, with a buzzer ready in front of the 3rd umpire, which will sound into the standing umpire's ear. Crisis solved.

Horrie says it's not a good idea.

I think the erroneous calling of a no ball could affect shot execution. The tech solution does not address this.

Anybody like to explain it to horrie?

horace wrote:I think the erroneous calling of a no ball could affect shot execution. The tech solution does not address this.

Technically speaking that's true but most batsmen have often remarked that in test cricket, where the stakes are highest, the call doesn't come quickly enough to affect shot selection. In the case of Voges he was clearly committed to the shot.  Nonetheless it does seem unfair to give a batsman out where an umpire has erroneously called no ball. That though doesn't take away the anomaly that once again bowlers can have wickets taken off them but batsmen don't lose their wickets in similar circumstances.


http://www.smh.com.au/sport/australia-v-new-zealand-test-series-darren-lehmann-calls-for-square-leg-umpire-to-make-noball-calls-20160216-gmvhh7.html

Lehmann on the square leg call.

horace wrote:I think the erroneous calling of a no ball could affect shot execution. The tech solution does not address this.

taipan wrote:Anybody like to explain it to horrie?

the way I see it ....



The on field umpire wouldnt call any no-ball until the ball is dead

(There may also be some sort of free hit gimmickry to cater for the fans of the slog a no ball)

The off field checker would beep the ump that a foot fault no ball had been delivered ...or the on field umps would call any of the other varieties (or call for a check on something) once the ball is dead

This means there is no advantage to a non foot fault no ball


But of course the ICC couldnt adopt something as simple as that

That's how I see it also, MB.

There'd be no need for any "free hit" malarkey - the batsman would play every shot as to a legal delivery, since the bowlers ump wouldn't call, as you say. If it is legal, TV ump does nothing, if a "foot-fault", he informs the on field ump, whereupon he calls the no ball. Any runs scored off it would stand, but any dismissal would be recalled as a not out, yes ?

Growler wrote:That's how I see it also, MB.

There'd be no need for any "free hit" malarkey - the batsman would play every shot as to a legal delivery, since the bowlers ump wouldn't call, as you say. If it is legal, TV ump does nothing, if a "foot-fault", he informs the on field ump, whereupon he calls the no ball. Any runs scored off it would stand, but any dismissal would be recalled as a not out, yes ?

Aye simple. I would also go with Lardy's suggestion and up the penalty.

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Basil wrote:This is a role for the fourth umpire (which at present, must be the cushiest job in world sport), to monitor no-balls with the benefit of fixed cameras set up independently of the host broadcaster.

It'd be a piece of piss, really - you've got a camera trained on both creases, both sides of the wicket, with a buzzer ready in front of the 3rd umpire, which will sound into the standing umpire's ear. Crisis solved.

Exactly.

spot on

......and the calling of an illegal action delivery?

no change on that one , h

Ta. So how far down the food chain will this go?

Will the tech solution apply in Shield or CC cricket, or just international cricket?

games with tv coverage and 3rd umpire

Hmmm....this all strikes me as nanny state...- no wonder Taipan has been excitedly typing one handed over this thread ...

so the variable is telly coverage. Is there blanket coverage of all international and first class matches?

Would like the umps role reasserted. The back foot rule was easily officiated. I would like to see it trialled. It was knocked off by the English, following whining from Cowdrey, May et al.

Maybe the Bannies have a point about technology.

horace wrote:Hmmm....this all strikes me as nanny state...- no wonder Taipan has been excitedly typing one handed over this thread ...

so the variable is telly coverage. Is there blanket coverage of all international and first class matches?

Would like the umps role reasserted. The back foot rule was easily officiated. I would like to see it trialled. It was knocked off by the English, following whining from Cowdrey, May et al.

Maybe the Bannies have a point about technology.

Hey you are the bleeding heart liberal, not me.

Bit pissed off because no one agreed with you?

Taips always putting the ass into asinine

If an umpire struggles to pay attention to front foot and ball at once, I wonder what chance he'd have of following back foot and ball.

Also, how would umpires of yesteryear do under the current levels of umpire scrutiny...

horace wrote:Hmmm....this all strikes me as nanny state...- no wonder Taipan has been excitedly typing one handed over this thread ...

so the variable is telly coverage. Is there blanket coverage of all international and first class matches?

Would like the umps role reasserted. The back foot rule was easily officiated. I would like to see it trialled. It was knocked off by the English, following whining from Cowdrey, May et al.

Maybe the Bannies have a point about technology.

unless you introduce a "linesman" extra umpire to call foot faults then tv coverage is the limitation

tricycle wrote:If an umpire struggles to pay attention to front foot and ball at once, I wonder what chance he'd have of following back foot and ball.

Also, how would umpires of yesteryear do under the current levels of umpire scrutiny...

the back foot is down a step before the front foot (usually) so theoretically you have more time to re-focus on the ball after watching the feet

But you'd have to turn your head as opposed to just the eyes.