spinner is bowling.) DRS and the modern technology are not
going to go away, so therefore a solution needs to be found
within the system to solve this problem, and to ensure that
umpires call foot fault no balls properly.
The idea of having a third umpire on the field roughly level
with straight mid-wicket to call front foot no balls has been
suggested, but he wouldn’t be able to judge back foot no
balls, and there is a significant injury risk to an umpire
standing relatively close to the striker who is not watching
the ball being hit, but is focusing on the popping crease at
the bowler’s end, so this proposal has been rejected.
A much better idea, in my view, would be to use the side-on
cameras for the third umpire to judge a no ball, press a
button which would produce a bleep in the umpire’s ear,
who would then call the no ball. The standing umpire would
David Burns, Oxon
I have just seen your article relating to match management,
and being a 60+ something thought I might pass on my
observations on the subject. I am a referee on the Hellenic
League and umpire in the Oxfordshire Cricket Association. I
began refereeing a number of years before I became a cricket
umpire and one of the first things I did when I began umpiring
was to adopt some of my refereeing techniques into my
umpiring game. This primarily involved engaging with the
players in particular, giving reasons for my decisions. Typically
a bowler, keeper, slips and occasionally deep square leg
would appeal for a LBW decision. I will immediately say, and
loud enough for everyone to hear, ‘not out missing leg stump’,
‘not out batsmen outside the line and playing a shot’ etc.
Similarly, if I give a batsman out I will also confirm why ‘that’s
out hitting middle stump’.
This has the benefit of giving clarification to the players, stops
any petty dissent (ie ‘what stump was that missing?’ because
you have already told them), enhances match control and is a
great aid in gaining the players’ respect.
then be able to focus entirely on the striker’s end and it is
likely that the quality of decision making would improve.
Alternatively, if the umpire was left with the no ball decision,
then if he were instructed not to call no ball until the ball
reached the striker (a delay of a fraction of a second in most
cases), then the idea that the striker had changed his stroke
would disappear. This would then allow a no ball call to be
reviewed when a batsman was dismissed, and to be
reversed if it were incorrect, just as with every other decision
using DRS. With this in place, there would be no need for
the ICC playing condition, and the Law could be used
instead. Umpires could then call foot fault no balls knowing
that the decision could be reviewed either way and the
correct result achieved from a delivery where there was a
dismissal. This would allow them to do their job properly,
which was the case for well over a century in the past!
The other benefit I have witnessed is that by engaging the
players in this manner, the number of hopeful appeals reduces
greatly over the course of a game. It is now fairly common in
my games that a bowler who is familiar with my umpiring
style will not appeal for a LBW decision and walk past me and
say for example ‘missing leg stump, ump’. I often receive
comments from players saying they appreciate my
communication and this again can only benefit the match
itself.
My technique also allows for a little humour. There is one
bowler now who not only shouts for a LBW decision but will
also give the decision as well, ‘how’s that? – not out missing
leg stump’. When I ask him why he still appealed he says ‘I
just can’t stop myself, ump’.
My experience suggests having the confidence to engage the
players is certainly beneficial to the game a