By Adrian Meredith
MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 15, 2012: In the recently completed test match, South Africa vs Australia at Brisbane, 1st test, there were four no balls that otherwise would have been wickets.
2/192 Over 55.4
Siddle to Kallis, (no ball) 1 run, caught at mid-off! Another soft dismissal, but Asad Rauf has asked the batsman to wait to check if there's a front-foot fault. Siddle's landed on the line, so it's been called a no-ball. Kallis gets a life. He tried to whip the ball over midwicket once again but this time the length wasn't full enough, the line was more on off stump and he got a leading edge that lobbed tamely to Lyon. But Siddle's front foot was not behind the line, it was on the line.
3/107 Over 24.3
Morkel to Cowan, 1 no ball, there's a noise as the ball flies past Cowan's hips and the South Africans roar for the caught behind, umpire Rauf says not out. South Africa ask for a review. Morkel's front foot is close to being a no-ball but a fraction of his heel is just behind. Or is it? It's very very close. It's been called a no-ball so it doesn't matter if Cowan hit it or not. Replays on hot spot indicate that the ball brushed the glove too. That would have been out had Morkel's front foot been a fraction behind the line. I don't think South Africa lose a referral for that.
4/340 Over 92.5
Morkel to Clarke, 1 no ball, another no-ball, this is Morkel's second but it adds to South Africa's huge total. Clarke was cut in half between bat and body, AB thought there was an edge after he collected it but I think it brushed the thigh. Will wait for replays to confirm. Hot spot indicate an inside edge, so Morkel has bowled two no balls and got edges that have been caught behind off both. Only himself to blame.
1/26 Over 10.6
Pattinson to Amla, 1 no ball, bowled him! But umpire Rauf is checking if Pattinson had over-stepped. He has! It's a no-ball. Amla bowled off a no-ball. It was full and fast in the blockhole just outside off stump, Amla tried to squeeze it out but got an inside edge on to his stumps. Australia's joy is short lived. That's four wickets off no-balls in this Test. Two to each team.
Now, I have no problem with the third one - after all, that was called at the time. But the other three weren't. The second one was given not out originally, then was referred as they thought he had hit it - it proved that he had - but it was now given not out due to the no ball! And then the other two were both given out - no ball wasn't called initially, but then on umpire review they were given not out because they were no balls.
The first thing to consider is this - is it reasonable for umpires to review in case it was a no ball?
In the original days of cricket, there was no TV replay. It was a no ball because the umpire could see it to be a no ball at the time. If it wasn't obvious, then it wasn't called.
In my opinion, we can really go one of two ways:
OPTION 1: Review every ball of the entire match to see if it could be a no ball
In international matches, there is enough money to do this and it doesn't have to be time consuming. They could install no ball mats and have a third umpire permanently assigned to checking no balls as the ball is bowled, then checking it by the time that the next delivery is due to be balled. Then, if it is deemed to be a no ball, then it could be given as an extra run. They could do this in all international matches - but probably couldn't realistically do it domestically.
If we go down this path, then it is going to be a lot harder for bowlers. They are going to be bowling from a foot behind the line, and hence aren't going to get quite as much power into the ball, which will be especially tough on fast bowlers. It is already hard enough for bowlers; but this will make it even tougher.
But, then again, a no ball is, effectively, cheating. Try playing a game where the bowler can bowl from halfway down the pitch and you will know how huge an advantage it is. No balls are called no balls for the simple reason that they give a bowler an unfair advantage. But is it fair to call all of them?
The fact of the matter is that if we called all balls in this way, in your typical test match there would probably be a no ball once every 30-50 balls or so - about 5 times as many as are called. It would give a huge extra advantage to batsmen.
OPTION 2: Remove the ability to review a wicket to see if it was a no ball.
Doing this will mean that we go back to the "if the umpire didn't see it, it didn't happen" rule that has always happened in the past. Umpires could still call no balls but they wouldn't be able to review in case it was a no ball. If they missed it at the time, then they missed it.
Doing this would continue to give bowlers some hope and would also let us feel a bit like there is something traditional about it.
The problem, of course, is that if it is a no ball then it shouldn't be out, and some people might feel that it is unfair to deliberately turn a blind eye to this.
Currently, of course, we are doing it a third way - but I don't like this:
OPTION 3: No balls are called at the time by umpires unless there is a wicket, in which case we go to the third umpire in case it might be a no ball
Doing this has a feeling of unfairness about it - by robbing bowlers of wickets and also taking much more time than it should. It also has the feeling of unfairness because they are probably missing lots of other no balls - and lots of other runs. Runs can be crucial to the outcome of a game too.
The way that they are currently doing it is unfair, and, while, as it so happened, the recently completed test didn't seem to favour one team over another as far as this was concerned, the fact is that it could. What if one team gets 4 decisions against them while the other team doesn't get any? It'd feel unfair.
Option 1 might seem reasonable and probably is plausible but the main problem is that it would become even easier for batsmen. They need to do something for bowlers! It'd make bowlers really feel useless.
If they can then find something for bowlers then fair enough but I just don't like option 1 at all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment