Your Letters
Gary Marshall, Essex
I am in total agreement with the sentiments expressed by
Mark Williams in his excellent article ‘The Death of the No Ball’
in the Winter 2015 issue.
I find it incomprehensible that the ICC’s Elite Panel is all but
ignoring no balls – a fundamental of the game – not least
because they have all the technology at their disposal to help
with decisions down at the ‘business end’. I would be
embarrassed to think I’d missed one ‘obvious’ no ball during a
day’s play, let alone 10 in one bowler’s spell, as we saw from
one of the Australians on the Friday of the Oval Test.
The failure to call no balls could well influence the result of a
match.
What is equally incomprehensible to me is that professional
players bowl no balls at all. How have they and their coaches
failed to iron out this clear shortfall in technique? If you ever
watch professionals going through their morning warm-ups
or net practice, you’ll invariably see them bowling with their
front foot well over the crease.
It is hard enough explaining to the layman or indeed new,
aspiring umpires that what they see on the television in the
professional game isn’t always the same as the Laws, without
a Law being flouted in this way.
Fred Wiles, Northumberland
As a standing umpire, I write to you after reading the
correspondence in this and other magazines, and following
the story on other media concerning my professional
colleagues’ lack of attention to the front foot no ball in
international cricket. As opinion on this topic has bounced
around for a while now, I cannot believe that ECB ACO and
other umpire organisations around the world have not stood
up and announced ‘enough is enough’.
It is almost inconceivable to the recreational umpire that a
fundamental task of the standing official has been ignored by
the ICC elite management team; especially when this clearly
leads to missing runs, extra balls needing to be bowled, and
affects the result of every match in which this occurs.
The discussion of techniques to avoid this problem, third
umpire intervention and a Hawk-Eye like system on the line to
help the standing umpire seem to me to miss the point and
delay the need to sort out a solution quickly.
Answered by Mark Williams, MCC:
Firstly, let’s be clear that I agree wholeheartedly with Gary
Marshall that the reluctance of some international umpires
to call front foot no balls is disastrous, and is a failure to
carry out one of their important functions. A solution to this
problem needs to be found quickly before those watching
lose faith in the application of such an important Law in
international cricket. However, as I pointed out in my article
in the last issue, there is a clear distinction between the Law
and the ICC playing condition as far as the calling of foot
fault no balls is concerned. The Law states that the umpire
must be satisfied that all three conditions have been met;
therefore if he is in doubt, he calls no ball. The ICC playing
condition states that the umpire must be satisfied that one
of the three conditions has been infringed; therefore if he is
in doubt, he does not call no ball. There is a clear difference
here which is exacerbated by the ICC Almanac, which
advises their umpires to only call a foot fault no ball if they
have ‘clear and conclusive evidence’ that it is a no ball.
24
If a professional umpire cannot now check the front line and
then make a judgement at the striker’s end (although this has
happened for years and years without major problems!), then
perhaps we can progress in a similar manner to other sports
to come up with a solution. A couple of examples may clear
the picture.
Tennis, at its highest level (Wimbledon etc) has a plethora of
officials, including one line judge per line. At a slightly lower
level (but still professional), a judge will, at service, take up
position on the service line, and then move to the side line for
the rest of the rally.
American football, when played at different levels, can have
three, four, five, six, or, at the highest level, seven officials.
Indeed, when the National Football League (NFL) started, it
had three referees, and the gradual increase was purely in
response to the changing plays and skills of the players, and
the need to be in position to make an accurate decision.
Sound familiar?
Why then can we in cricket not do the following at the
highest level? A third on-field umpire standing at
approximately mid-on, level with the crease, to adjudicate on
the front foot no ball. This official would also be in position to
judge run outs, illeg