Chappeli wants no ball rule change

No one should be surprised that the front-foot no-ball law is creating controversy and confusion and that umpire Richard Illingworth's error gave Adam Voges a monumental reprieve in the Wellington Test.

In 1962, Richie Benaud asked Sir Donald Bradman - both favoured a back-foot law - to act as an umpire in the nets to prove how the then new front-foot no-ball law was unworkable. When the photographs taken in that experiment were developed, Benaud found, "An umpire, on more occasions than not, would be calling no-ball when, in fact, the ball was perfectly legitimate, by something like half an inch. It was just that the umpire's line of sight was pushing the bowler's boot forward so it looked as though it was a no-ball."

Knowing that, it's no surprise Illingworth incorrectly called Doug Bracewell's delivery that bowled Voges a no-ball. What's less clear is why a batsman is reprieved by video replay of a no-ball but a bowler isn't entitled to similar privileges. The answer, we're told, is the poor old batsman might alter his shot on hearing the umpire's call of "no-ball".

What planet are these officials from? If a bowler - even one operating at 150 to 160 kph - oversteps by mere millimetres (the general infringement), it makes absolutely no difference at the batsman's end. And secondly, under the front-foot no-ball law a batsman facing a fast bowler doesn't have time to change his mind, let alone his shot, by the time the umpire's call registers.

Klämmssøn wrote:Every time there's anything to do with no balls out comes this same article again.

My own stupid suggestion: Same front-foot rule but put the stumps on the popping crease and the bowler must stay behind the bowling crease.

Basil wrote:

Klämmssøn wrote:Every time there's anything to do with no balls out comes this same article again.

My own stupid suggestion: Same front-foot rule but put the stumps on the popping crease and the bowler must stay behind the bowling crease.

Makes the pitch 20 yards long, or am I missing something?

Aditya wrote:I can say with authority that Ian Chappell browses this forum and has been stealing my ideas, spinning articles out of them. Oh well.