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.
No comments:
Post a Comment