• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* England in New Zealand 2019

thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
So it seems all I’ve achieved here is posting an image of my camera roll which I can’t figure out how to remove on my phone
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
I thought it was a no ball. Can't see any foot behind the line. Benefit of the doubt does not go to a bowler for noballs.

So happy Leach batted at 10 above Broad. He should bat above Archer too tbh.
 
F

Flametree

International 12th Man
***** said:
I thought it was a no ball. Can't see any foot behind the line. Benefit of the doubt does not go to a bowler for noballs.

So happy Leach batted at 10 above Broad. He should bat above Archer too tbh.
Click to expand...
Agree with both your points. Bowler has to have something behind the line and there's no way that was the case there. And yeah, look forward to seeing bowlers in shoes with a trailing foot long piece of plastic behind their shoes if it's decided that the bulge on his heel counts....
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
All this chat is just proving that no-one actually cares whether it was a no-ball and this is all based on ‘benefit of the doubt against the bowler’ ideology
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
While I think it was a no-ball, I also don't think there was substantial enough evidence to over-turn the on-field decision. So if the onfield umpire felt it was a legal delivery, then fair enough IMO. It's not such a big no-ball to the point where it warrants overturning. But, if there was no on field signal, and it was entirely up to the third umpire to make the call, then I reckon it should have been called no-ball because the way the law is worded requires that some part of the foot be visibly behind the line, and that clearly was not the case. Borderline call = no-ball.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
***** said:
While I think it was a no-ball, I also don't think there was substantial enough evidence to over-turn the on-field decision. So if the onfield umpire felt it was a legal delivery, then fair enough IMO. It's not such a big no-ball to the point where it warrants overturning. But, if there was no on field signal, and it was entirely up to the third umpire to make the call, then I reckon it should have been called no-ball because the way the law is worded requires that some part of the foot be visibly behind the line, and that clearly was not the case. Borderline call = no-ball.
Click to expand...
On-field umpires have checked out when it comes to no-balls
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
I've never ever ever heard of "umpire's call for no balls" being a thing before. The 3rd umpire simply looks at the vision and makes a decision purely based on that with no feedback from the on-field umpire afaik.

I do think though that the official guidance is explicitly to give the bowler the benefit of the doubt on indeterminate no ball decisions. I just think this one was conclusive.
 
Last edited:
andmark

andmark

International Captain
The scenery around the ground is interesting. Despite there being industrial plants, it keeps a countryside feel. Looks like a nice place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top