Missed no-ball robs Warne

[Crazy Sam]

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,12112433-23212,00.html

Missed no-ball robs Warne
By Ron Reed
February 1, 2005

SHANE Warne learned to his dismay last night that he was robbed of one of his most cherished cricket ambitions – to score a Test century.

The leg-spinner, who has more wickets than any other bowler in Test history, went within a whisker of the batting milestone when he was caught in the outfield, slogging New Zealand spinner Daniel Vettori in Perth in December 2001.

But Channel 9 has unearthed previously unseen footage that shows Vettori's front foot was well over the popping crease, making the delivery a no-ball.

Warne, who ran through for the single that would have given him his century, could not have been given out if umpire Darrell Hair had noticed – and called – the infringement.

The footage was shown at last night's Allan Border Medal dinner.

Asked by host Eddie McGuire how he felt about it, he said: "We're on TV so I can't swear."

Warne said later: "Obviously, I'm disappointed, but what can you do?

"That's the way it is. There's nothing I can do about it but just get another one, I suppose."

At the weekend Warne was back in his best batting form, making 75 for Victoria against South Australia.

 

[Smudge]

What a load of rubbish - plenty of no-balls go un-noticed.

 

[Mister Wright]

You'll find when you look closely at Glenn McGrath's front foot when he got Jimmy Adams to get his hat-trick in Perth that there was no part of it behind the line. Although it wasn't as clear of a no-ball as Vettori's.

 

[Mister Wright]

Also Warne has had his fair share of luck. Wiseman didn't hit that ball when Warne took the Australian record number of wickets.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Live with it.

 

[Langeveldt]

I like Warney as a batsman.. I would be pretty stoked if it was me.. I know loads of No - Balls go un-noticed, but why should that make it alright?

 

[Mister Wright]

I like Warney as a batsman.. I would be pretty stoked if it was me.. I know loads of No - Balls go un-noticed, but why should that make it alright?

Because that's cricket.

Who knows how many no-balls Warne has bowled to get wickets. Perhaps he got a batsman out on 99. We can't change what has happened, as Neil said - live with it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If it's that big a no-ball I'm really surprised it has taken til now to come to light. When Shep missed those no-balls against Pakistan the last time they toured here (I think 3 of our wickets fell to no-balls IIRC) the press was all over it in a flash.

It's one of those things that technology has sussed (unlike catches or LBWs), so why not just have a fixed camera make all the decisons? I can't see a reason not to.

 

[a massive zebra]

My heart bleeds.

 

[Retox]

There going on about it if he is the only person to get out on a bad decision.

Brendon McCullum (In Australia)?
The no to get Jimmy Adams "hat trick" ball.
It goes on and on. But no ones seems to bring these up.


Move on people.

 

[Tim]

I suppose because it's Warne, everybody will make it a big deal & feel sorry for him. But he's not the first & definately won't be the last to be unlucky in that kind of situation.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

It wont be long till the 3rd umpire handles no-ball calls. So all this will be a thing of the past.

 

[Tim]

Not forgetting the awful shot Warne played in his attempt to reach 100. The shot was never on and it almost looked as though he was going for glory with a 6.

All he needed to do was wait 2 or 3 balls for a loose delivery and guide it away for a single.

 

[Galactic_Soap]

Bwahahahha, maybe Hair was paying attention to his elbow as aposed to the bowling crease, oh well poor Warnie, hes good enough to have a test century.

Cheers
Soapy

 

[Top_Cat]

This just shows two things;

1) The inherent impossibility in expecting a human eye to determine within a margin of a few millimetres what is a front-foot no-ball and what isn't (and then of course to flick the eyes up to see LBW's, catches, etc.). Bring on Hawk-Eye for cricket or revert to a back-foot rule or something. The likely high percentage of missed no-balls means this sort of stuff is common-place and either should be eradicated completely or just accepted as a 'win some, lose some' thing.

2) The stupid parochial nature of Australian sport. The way Warnie played that day, he probably deserved a ton but a cross-batted heave across the line going for glory just ain't the way to do it. No batsman worth anything would have. Warne robbed himself with the bone-headed slog on 99, he wasn't 'robbed'.

I notice that Damien Fleming's no-ball in the World Cup on the last ball of the match is rarely talked about (well, except in South Africa......). Were South Africa therefore robbed by the umpires? I doubt you'd get any of the Aussie team or Capo-moron Eddie MacGuire agreeing with that...............

 

[age_master]

i thought it was pretty funny how someone dug that up after all this time

 

[Richard]

ABM Ceremony - minor sensations are a must.
A bit of a funny thing, though, yes.

 

[Richard]

The inherent impossibility in expecting a human eye to determine within a margin of a few millimetres what is a front-foot no-ball and what isn't (and then of course to flick the eyes up to see LBW's, catches, etc.). Bring on Hawk-Eye for cricket or revert to a back-foot rule or something. The likely high percentage of missed no-balls means this sort of stuff is common-place and either should be eradicated completely or just accepted as a 'win some, lose some' thing.

And the former is surely the irrepressably better idea.
When it's finally introduced I bet we'll be asking ourselves how the hell it took so obscenely long to get it done - how many missed no-balls could have been called for every run-out or stumping spotted? No-balls should have been the first thing technology sorted-out.
It's as belief-defying as the length of time it took such an obvious change as the ruling on the run-scoring with regard no-balls\wides.
How it took 222 years or whatever it was for that to come into place is indicative of that wonderful slow-progressor that is cricket.

 

[Richard]

I like Warney as a batsman.. I would be pretty stoked if it was me.. I know loads of No - Balls go un-noticed, but why should that make it alright?

Every no-ball missed is an injustice - Warne got Trescothick with a no-ball when he played that stupid premeditated dab at Trent Bridge in 2001... he'll have got plenty of mentions, of course.
Not to mention, of course, the total absurdity that is Vettori and Warne bowling no-balls off 4 or 5 paces.
All the more reason to cut-out both things as soon as possible.

 

[Crazy Sam]

no balls called electronically may also allow umpires to concentrate more on the point where the ball is around the pad/bat and therefore make better decisions on lbw and catches.