Front Foot No Ball Call Should Come From The On-field Umpire: Sunil Gavaskar

[MenInG]

Batting legend Sunil Gavaskar says he’s finding it hard to understand some of the new rules introduced by the ICC including the call for overstepping by a bowler new being made by the third umpire. Gavaskar reckons that it’s a bit unfair on batters since they end up missing out on a chance to rethink their shot and score runs should they come to know about the no-ball instantly.

Earlier, the on-field umpire used to adjudge the front foot no ball but the ICC eventually introduced the technology to shift the decision-making with the TV umpire. The idea behind this step was to eliminate on-field umpiring mistakes as an umpire has to simultaneously keep their eyes open on various things happening at the time of the delivery.

“Some changes that have come up are hard to understand," Gavaskar said on air during the second day of the ongoing 4th Test between India and England at The Oval. “The no ball call has to come from the on-field umpire. This is a little unfair on batsmen; (At least) against the spinners, a batsman has some time to change shot (should they become aware of the no ball early)."

With the third umpire taking charge of calling front foot no-ball, the decision is usually made well after the delivery has been bowled and the batter has already played his shot.

Gavaskar says that even if the umpire commit mistake as far as overstepping call goes, they can always be made aware of the TV umpire and change their decision accordingly. “They (umpire) should be confident ‘never mind I will give the decision. Even if I am wrong, the TV umpire can tell me that my decision is not right’," Gavaskar said.

In limited-overs cricket though, a no ball results in a free-hit for the batting team which in a way makes up for the lost chance. However, in red-ball cricket there’s no such provision.

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/...e-on-field-umpire-sunil-gavaskar-4162169.html

 

[Varun]

Not this again.

I thought we learned the hard way over the last ~10 years that on-field umpires are only good for the deathly obvious: boundaries, clean bowleds and using the light meter. They can't even adjudicate obvious runouts without going to the TV umpire.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Gavaskar's gone senile with all these ramblings about how things were better in the old days.

The decision to mandate the third umpire to rule on no-balls is one of the most pragmatic decisions taken by the ICC in recent years, given how it had become a farce where the on-field umpires were not bothering to check for no-balls at all in the aftermath of the Adam Voges non-dismissal off a legitimate delivery that was called no-ball by the on-field umpire at Wellington in 2016. Umpires became so spooked that the only time no-balls were checked was when a wicket fell.

The consequence was that bowlers didn't have a clear idea of when they were overstepping which tended to deprive them of wickets, while the batting side kept missing out on runs as no-balls were constantly being missed.

So Gavaskar is deplorably wrong here.

 

[Snowflake]

One of the dumbest comments ever ) no player can change their shot upon hearing the umpires call! There's no time lol!

3rd umpire intervention makes sure that the batsman is protected from these oversights by onfield umpires - it actually benefits the batsman lol

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Lol.

No.

One of the few good things in cricket.

Makes the game fair.

 

[mastimasti]

Sunny losing his marbles?

 

[MenInG]

I am sure batsmen talk about the advantage of an early call for no-balls, so maybe Sunny has a point?

 

[Varun]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cDJC4Vfma-Y" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Check out 6:20. Even the worst umpire of the time - Steve Bucknor - did that in a World Cup final.

How many times have we seen that in the last 10-15 years though?

 

[Bewal Express]

Why not go back to back foot rule, it would give umpires a chance to call it.

 

[Major]

dumb comments by Gavaskar.

The batsmen is already getting a free hit in limited overs and in test gets to survive if wicket falls or gets an extra run. Talking about batsmen can change his shot is dumb. Infact, very rarely on a called no ball will a batsmen chnage his shot. Infact, it is very near impossible due to the seconds it takes.
[MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION] has explained it well of the issue that was being caused.

Also, umpires cant focus on lbws if they have to keep their eyes on the line aswell.

 

[drubwrubnat]

What will happen if the umpire calls a no ball, batsman changes shot, gets out & then tv replays found that the ball was legit ?

 

[Mainul]

God decision by ICC. It's really tough, too much load on nerves of umpire to keep on eye on the steps of the bowler and the subsequent action-ball landing on the pitch and then tracking the ball. Everything occuring within fraction of a second. Why not using the technology? May times in the past batsmen were out of a no ball! Why not Gavaskar thinking of those incidents?

 

[cricketjoshila]

What will happen if the umpire calls a no ball, batsman changes shot, gets out & then tv replays found that the ball was legit ?

Umpire's call stays.

 

[PakLFC]

Sunny miyan is wrong here. It is difficult for the on field umpires to be focusing on the bowlers boots! Naturally they are concentrating to looking straight ahead towards the coming delivery and batsman. Perhaps Sunny should have tried umpiring after he retired would then realise it's not an easy job.

 

[Executioner]

Only time possible for a Batsman to change their mindset upon hearing the no-ball call is when :

1) The umpire gives a call early and
2) the bowler is a spinner

And the odds aren't as likely as some make it out to be

 

[MenInG]

In Pakistan v West Indies game, a siren sound plays when a no ball happens!

 

[jnaveen1980]

They missed so many noballs of Stokes. Last time they missed 16 noballs from Ishant. They checked only when there was a wicket. That is when they found umpires missed several. I am sure umpires miss a lot. If only India had this facility in the 1997 test against West INdies India would have won. Frankly rose bowled so many noballs. Some of them resulted in dismissals. None of them were called.

 

[Saurav]

In Pakistan v West Indies game, a siren sound plays when a no ball happens!

real time?

Siren when third umpire calls it is normal but it happens after the ball has been bowled.

 

[silentkiller187]

real time?

Siren when third umpire calls it is normal but it happens after the ball has been bowled.

siren when 3rd umpire makes the call

 

[sam_ahm]

Sunny has got a valid point. While the 3rd umpire can correct the onfield umpire if he makes a wrong call (of not calling a no ball) at least the onfield umpire needs to check it. So that if batsmen hears it early then can attack. Esp in test cricket where there is no free hit.

But what if onfield umpire calls for a noball when it isn't a noball and batsmen gets out thinking its a no ball and playing a rash shot? In such cases it should be considered a dead ball after 3rd umpires correction.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Sunny has got a valid point. While the 3rd umpire can correct the onfield umpire if he makes a wrong call (of not calling a no ball) at least the onfield umpire needs to check it. So that if batsmen hears it early then can attack. Esp in test cricket where there is no free hit.

But what if onfield umpire calls for a noball when it isn't a noball and batsmen gets out thinking its a no ball and playing a rash shot? In such cases it should be considered a dead ball after 3rd umpires correction.

Gavaskar is not making a valid point precisely because of your clarification in bold. This is exactly what happened in Wellington with Adam Voges a few years ago and practically cost New Zealand the test match.

There is no need to add pressure on the on-field umpires given the importance of umpire's call. The third umpire has access to the technology and support to be adjudicating on no-balls without major problems. It's always better to simplify rules than complicate matters due to some misguided respect for old-fashioned conventions.

 

[giri26]

Gavaskar is not making a valid point precisely because of your clarification in bold. This is exactly what happened in Wellington with Adam Voges a few years ago and practically cost New Zealand the test match.

There is no need to add pressure on the on-field umpires given the importance of umpire's call. The third umpire has access to the technology and support to be adjudicating on no-balls without major problems. It's always better to simplify rules than complicate matters due to some misguided respect for old-fashioned conventions.

To be frank the on-field umpires have the least pressure on a cricket field. What do they actually call these days? Only LBW, wide, caught behind, bat pad catch, Most of the LBW calls are referred anyways and so do bat pad catches making majority of their calls irrelevant. Very rarely they would have to resolve an on-field dispute or look at the danger area. These are very rare occurrence's. Now they don't call no-ball as well. So basically there is less pressure these days on umpires. They know that if they make a wrong call the batting/fielding team are going to review it anyways. Umpiring has been at its lowest in recent times with so many call being overturned. I have been watching cricket for 30 years now and to be frank even without technology most games would have 1-2 bad calls but now a days a Test match has around 10 bad calls. That shows how casual and lazy on-field umpires have become in recent times.

Umpires in the past had lot more pressure but we still had amazing umpires like Sheppard, Bird, Taufel, Aleem Dar, Venkat etc