Backfoot no ball rule

My son heard Richie prattling on about this at tea time and asked what it was all about.

After explanation he reckoned it was the most stupid rule he had ever heard of.

You need to beat your son around the head with a phone book.

Why, for stating the obvious?

Mind you. that brings Red to mind so maybe not a bad idea.

Must say, I dont' necessarily advocate a return to the old back-foot rule, but I think 'a' back foot rule would make life easier for the umpires.

Dies anyone, bar Richie, remember the rule?

taipan wrote:Why, for stating the obvious?

Mind you. that brings Red to mind so maybe not a bad idea.

Asked and answered, your honour!

I'd like MB's opinion on the matter.

He's too young.

taipan wrote:He's too young.

Hehe, fair point.

I must say, in my 20s and 30s as a ticketed umpire, I had no trouble watching the front foot then looking up at the batsman. The brain does work pretty quick.

If Richie and anyone else is advocating that the old back foot rule gives an old fart of an umpire much more time to "look up" then the answer is simple - get younger umpires.

When did the law change? Circa 1965.

Or replace them with hawkeye

If you keep your head still and just move your eyes then you usually dont have trouble watching the line for front foot no balls and then readjusting for the ball in flight ...

I dont know if the batsman has less time to react to a call of no ball under the front foot Law

And then there's the drag problem that saw the back foot rule banished just after Richie retired from Tests...

Not wanting to forgive Lee et al's propensity to bowl repeated no-balls, but the video reviewing of no balls has the potential to paint the umpires as incompetent in a big way.

It makes me wonder how many no-balls are being missed in everyday play and not subject to review.

I've long agreed with Richie Benaud that the front-foot no-ball rule is ludicrous. And as I said above, while I can't recall exactly how the back-foot no-ball rule applied, having 'a' back foot rule would make sense. Something along the lines of 'the bowler's first foot to land as part of the delivery stride must not land on, or touch, the bowling crease at any stage prior to the ball leaving the bowler's hand'

I mean, it's called THE BOWLING CREASE, but as a line, it's not actually used for anything in the game as far as I can tell any more.

My suggestion above would mean anyone 'dragging' would touch crease, it would allow the umpire more time to move their vision from the foot to the delivery.

skully wrote:And then there's the drag problem that saw the back foot rule banished just after Richie retired from Tests...

The drag "problem" isn't a problem. You could simply legalise it. Australian umpires used to turn a blind eye to dragging (unlike their English counterparts) and fast bowlers often delivered the ball from around 20 yards out instead of 22.

Would it be the end of the world to introduce a law change that benefited the bowler instead of the batsman? I don't think we've had a bowler-friendly law change since the last reform of the LBW rule.

Hass wrote:Would it be the end of the world to introduce a law change that benefited the bowler instead of the batsman?

What about a law change that improves the game as a spectacle, but not in an artifical way? That'd be a bonus.

Did the Englishman bowl a single front foot no ball during the whole ashes series?

taipan wrote:My son heard Richie prattling on about this at tea time and asked what it was all about.

After explanation he reckoned it was the most stupid rule he had ever heard of.

........... and he's right taips.

A quick scan of cricinfo reveals the following No-ball counts by the England attack during the Ashes:

Brisbane - 1 & 0
Adelaide - 1 & 0
Perth - 0 & 2
Melbourne - 5 (in Australia's 98) & 0
Sydney - 2 & 2

I might have these wrong, but those 13 compare to 21 from Australia in the series.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/most_extras_innings.html?id=5540;type=series

Zat wrote:A quick scan of cricinfo reveals the following No-ball counts by the England attack during the Ashes:

Brisbane - 1 & 0
Adelaide - 1 & 0
Perth - 0 & 2
Melbourne - 5 (in Australia's 98) & 0
Sydney - 2 & 2

I might have these wrong, but those 13 compare to 21 from Australia in the series.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/most_extras_innings.html?id=5540;type=series

Thanks Zat. So 50% more no balls from the side that didn't bowl a second innings 3 times. Minimising no balls is attitude and coaching.

For years it's been one of the constants of Aussie cricket that the blokes have bowled too many no balls. I had the chance to see a bit of their net stuff at the SCG and they were still regularly overstepping and nobody was saying a word to them about it. It is arrogance personified.

Richie has been banging on about the back foot no-ball rule for as long as I've had a hole in my arse. IIRC, he bemoans the fact that batsmen don't get the chance to have a swing at a front foot no-ball.

Can't see what the fuss is about to be honest as the bowler still has to bowl an extra ball. If we have to give the batsmen a freebie, and it's already a batsman's game, then introduce the free hit into all forms of the game.

Richie's biggest gripe is that more no-balls are bowled under the front-foot rule.

He never tires of bringing out the stats from the 1961 Ashes series (played under the back-foot rule) when only one-no ball was called in the entire series.

Admittedly, the umpires in that series treated no-balls in a similar fashion to the way they treat running on the pitch today ie. they weren't too fussed as long as they didn't think the bowler was trying to gain an unfair advantage.

Hass wrote:Richie's biggest gripe is that more no-balls are bowled under the front-foot rule.

He never tires of bringing out the stats from the 1961 Ashes series (played under the back-foot rule) when only one-no ball was called in the entire series.

Admittedly, the umpires in that series treated no-balls in a similar fashion to the way they treat running on the pitch today ie. they weren't too fussed as long as they didn't think the bowler was trying to gain an unfair advantage.

And of course each dismissal wasn't treated to an ultra slomo review by the third ump.

LINK

Rod Marsh channels Richie ...

A couple of metres is hardly going to make much difference to the umpire's chances of avoiding it. The article says a square leg umpire got hit; he's further away and has less to do. It is an issue, but this is not the solution to it.

I suspect he doesn't think it is, either, and has another reason for the proposal.