Front Foot No-Balls

[cnerd123]

Inspired by the debate in the Eng/SL thread, and the general arguments that spout up anytime a wicket is overturned due to a replay showing a bowler overstepped and the umpire didn't call it

Key points:

1) It's the umpire's job to call front-foot no-balls. By definition by not calling no-balls they're being incompetent
2) When umpires miss front-foot no-balls, not only are they letting the bowler get away with a violation of the Laws, but they're also not letting the bowler know an adjustment is needed
3) The bowler (and by extension, fielding team) suffers when they get away with front foot no-balls until they take a wicket, and the replay shows they were over the line
4) This whole process of checking for no-balls every dismissal takes away something from the game
5) We have TV Umpires - why don't they call no-balls?

Counter-points

1) Professional bowlers should know how to mark out their run-ups. The umpires aren't coaches at a U-11 game; their goal isn't to fix a bowler's technique. And besides, if an umpire is watching the crease, they do generally let a bowler know when they're getting close to a no-ball. This should be sufficient information.
2) We notice that umpires miss no-balls because of modern tech; we don't have evidence that they're actually worse at calling no-balls than 'back in the day'. For all we know, this is standard and we're just aware now.
3) The TV umpire could potentially call no-balls, but it isn't that straightforward. For one, there would be a lag between what happens in real time and what he sees on his screen, and there will be some logistics issues since they can't actually call no-ball as soon as the bowler oversteps. You'll only have the call of no-ball come down to the on-field umpire to signal once the ball is dead. And if the no-ball is borderline the TV umpire is going to want to see a replay anyways. Does he replay every single borderline no-ball, and the action on the field gets paused till he makes his call?

Discuss

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Solution: Automation of the no-ball-calling device

 

[harsh.ag]

Motion sensors enabled crease. Done.

 

[cnerd123]

Solution: Automation of the no-ball-calling device

I think there is no objection to such an idea in principle but the technology just doesn't exist yet

 

[andmark]

Is some sort of foot-line technology possible like goal line technology in football?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I think there is no objection to such an idea in principle but the technology just doesn't exist yet

Barbed wires on the line? No?

 

[slippy888]

Can a 3rd umpire have the will power to be checking no balls all day

 

[Bolo]

Solution: Automation of the no-ball-calling device

Solid idea actually. Shouldn't be that hard for tech to implement.

As it stands though, drs exists to correct major umpiring errors, not for umps to sit back and do nothing. Call it FFS

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Can a 3rd umpire have the will power to be checking no balls all day

Five days of it, you’d go out of your mind!

 

[straw man]

It should be either the third umpire watching this live and pressing a button, or an automated check (the technology absolutely does exist, it just requires some cost and organisation), but the most important thing is that a loud and obnoxious BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP sounds immediately on the field to signal the no ball.

edit: and/or a rusty scarecrow with a spring-loaded arm that bounces up when triggered

 

[TheJediBrah]

The TV umpire could potentially call no-balls, but it isn't that straightforward. For one, there would be a lag between what happens in real time and what he sees on his screen, and there will be some logistics issues since they can't actually call no-ball as soon as the bowler oversteps. You'll only have the call of no-ball come down to the on-field umpire to signal once the ball is dead. And if the no-ball is borderline the TV umpire is going to want to see a replay anyways. Does he replay every single borderline no-ball, and the action on the field gets paused till he makes his call?

I don't think that's an issue. Just call the obvious ones then, let the close ones go. You should be able to communicate with the on-field umpire if it's a no-ball within seconds. If it's borderline enough to need a replay then say it's a fair ball and only check if it's a wicket. It would still be a lot better than what we have now, ie. clear no-balls not being called.

I think there is no objection to such an idea in principle but the technology just doesn't exist yet

I'm sure it does, and has existed for a long time.

 

[the big bambino]

I'd like to talk about the SL v England test.

 

[Midwinter]

Does the modern position of the Umpire standing 3 metres back from the stumps affect their ability to judge front foot no balls ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Does the modern position of the Umpire standing 3 metres back from the stumps affect their ability to judge front foot no balls ?

You'd think so. It's a pretty well known tactic too for fast bowlers to ask the umpire to stand back a bit more "so they aren't in the way of the run up", when really you're just trying to make it harder for them to see your no-balls

 

[Burgey]

Game changing thread this. Innovative topic and ensuing discussion.

 

[mr_mister]

If they can catch oversteppers in Olympic long jump with technology I see no reason why it can't be used in cricket

 

[Burgey]

True, but you just know that as with every advance in cricket since overarm bowling, India will refuse to use it.

 

[cnerd123]

or an automated check (the technology absolutely does exist, it just requires some cost and organisation)

I'm sure it does, and has existed for a long time.

If they can catch oversteppers in Olympic long jump with technology I see no reason why it can't be used in cricket

Since you're all so certain, can you actually describe this technology and explain how it can be implemented into a cricket match? And outline the costs involved and explain to us who will foot the bill.

If you can't you're just resorting to the 'if they can get a man on the moon' line of arguing and that's lazy.

And Burgey actually makes a good point - even if the tech were available and affordable and accurate, that doesn't mean these member boards will agree to implement it. Politics, as always, is an issue

 

[TheJediBrah]

Since you're all so certain, can you actually describe this technology and explain how it can be implemented into a cricket match? And outline the costs involved and explain to us who will foot the bill.

If you can't you're just resorting to the 'if they can get a man on the moon' line of arguing and that's lazy.

And Burgey actually makes a good point - even if the tech were available and affordable and accurate, that doesn't mean these member boards will agree to implement it. Politics, as always, is an issue

not sure if srs

you want a "lazy line of arguing" how about "if you can't explain a technology then you can't say that it exists"

 

[cnerd123]

The least you could do is post a video of said technology in action and put in some simple thought into explaining how you would set it up for a cricket game