D'OH BALL!

A lot of noise is made about "wickets taken" with no balls. Vaughan and Trescothick in England, for instance. These incidents are always couched in the same breathless terms as dropped catches. "The England skipper had two lives on 41."

I don't agree.

The flight of a no ball will be different to that of a legitimate ball. Thus a wicket taken by a no ball would probably not have been taken by a legitimate ball in it's stead. Granted the initial high of a no ball wicket, quickly followed by the let-down of seeing the umpy with his arm out can be deflating, but if the ball was legitimate in the first place, the end result would have been different.

Sure, sure, it's a rather fine point, but it's a point needs making.

Split hairs aside, what happened when Billy Doctor reprieved Ricky Ponting, was bizarre. Bowlers taking wickets with no balls has reached epidemic proportions, but yesterday was the first time I've ever seen a bowler no-balled when it wasn't a no ball.

Televisual adjudication of no balls is becoming more and more likely.

While I'm on the topic - Shane Warne. At the WACA back in 2001 Warne was dismissed for 99, caught in the deep by Wanker Richardson off Danny Vettori. As everybody is now aware, courtesy of footage at last year's Border Medal, Vettori had bowled a no ball. So, in the same way as Justin Langer was dismissed by a Flintoff no ball at Lords, Warne should have been not out and, in fact, scored a ton. The thing is though, here I am watching Warne on 99, I saw the dismissal, I saw the replays, and yet I didn't know it was a no ball. Why? I don't think I would have missed that. And if I hadn't, I wouldn't have forgotten it. Yet what was shown at the Border Medal was news to me. What am I getting at? Well, just this - was the Border Medal footage stooged?

Comments

[carneagles]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow - why were they showing film of a three-year-old dismissal at the Border Medal?

[Tony.T]

They were stirring up Warne with footage showing that, if not for a dodgy call, he would have had a test century. You should have seen his face. Aghast, he was.

Everyone now assumes Warne was dudded on 99. But I want to know why no one seemed to know about the dodgy dismissal in the intervening three years.

[Adsy]

Warne should have been given out for playing such a dickhead shot like that on 99 anyway... especially considering he could have just knocked it around the corner.

P.S - Go Hodgey... we love him cos he's not a New South Welshman.

[Tony.T]

Can't disagree with that.

[Some other Bruce]

If the footage is doctored it is of a quality right up there with the moon landings.

You can see Richardson in the background of the line shot and even move to take the ball. Hmmm.. Perhaps it is *too* perfect.

Langveldte will be called incorrectly again I reckon. He only marginally lifts his heel at the end of a largish slide forward. From the umpire's LOS he will see all the line on the close ones which is the trigger for the arm going out.

[Pedro the Ignorant]

One thing is for sure. The big screen at the WACA had an image of Langeveldt's front foot that lasted about .5 second before a Channel Nein director quickly replaced it with the Cricket Australia logo.
No replay.

ABC radio commentators were as nonplussed as the rest of the crowd.

General WACA crowd opinion is that Channel Nein is censoring and not replaying dodgy umpiring decisions. I wonder if Nein would admit to this censorship if they were asked directly?

[Tony.T]

I'm perfectly happy to accept it's real footage, Bruce. (Although, as Pedro alludes to, Nine are duplicitous scum.) I'm just puzzled as to why myself and, especially, Warne, were surprised by the BM footage.

Two words, Pedro: Official Broadcaster.

Whenever those two are are associated with sport the coverage will be sanitized, pasturised and homogenised so that there is not chance of the OB offending the sporting body and thus losing the rights.

Nine & Murali is a ... err ... the Worst Case Scenario.

[Yorkshire Soul]

I agree with your first point Tony, but surely you are missng the point with your second case, Warney being out on 99 is just hilarious !

[Tony.T]

You could be right, Mike, it certainly amused Wanker Rickardson who razzed the crowd.

I dislike Richardson - he's a hack who sledges. Nothing lamer.

[Francis Xavier Holden]

congrats on above post. I have no fuckin' idea what you are talking about.

[Tony.T]

Thank you, FX. I do try to keep up my standards, you know.

[pat]

With the no-ball scenario it is highly conceivable that the batsman has picked up the call and tried to bash/slash where he would normally do otherwise.

Also, doesn't some part of the bowlers foot have to be behind the line...not on it or above it but behind it? Looked to me like the no-ball delivered to Punter was in fact a no-ball as no part of the bowler's foot was behind the line.

[Yobbo]

What Pedro said. They don't replay it when the umpire makes an obvious fuckup that changes the game.

[Tony.T]

Yep, Pat, the bowler must have some part of his front foot behind the line.

Laws of Cricket No.24 (No Ball):

5. Fair delivery - the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(i) the bowler's back foot must land within and not touching the return crease.
(ii) the bowler's front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised, behind the popping crease.
If the umpire at the bowler's end is not satisfied that both these conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

Yob: There's no doubt the integrity of the coverage is compromised by Crick Aussie, Channel Nine and to a lesser extent, The ABC being selective in what they broadcast.

[Adsy]

Thats the corporate world we live in. Don't let the plebs see anything that might give them cause to question anything about the game.

P.S - Hey Tone, did you see the KGB, oh I mean the ICC have suspended poor Shabbir Ahmed from the Paki's for throwing! For a year! The sky is about to fall in!

And this just in from Malcolm Speed...

"...it indicates the ICC's seriousness in tackling this issue."

HA HA HA....

[Clem Snide]

The ICC really is the United Nations of cricket. Poor Schappelle Ahmed. Looks like it's not just tourists who mistakenly think that paying the bribe is optional.

And that rule about a raised foot being a legal delivery - what sort of idiocy is that? It's totally unenforceable, as the umpire has zero chance of determining if a raised heel is behind the line. IMHO Doctrove hasn't done a thing wrong all match, and is easily the pick of the current international umpires from what I've seen so far.

[Some other Bruce]

It's not that hard Clem. Lift your heel up now and see how much lateral movement it creates at the back. Not much. Umpires look at where the back ends up after all the forward motion stops. You do get the odd weird bowler who never puts their heel down but otherwise I wouldn't rate it as much of an issue.