Wicket off a no-ball? Not bad luck, mate

Steven Finn draws an edge from Steven Smith, but turns out to have overstepped the mark. Cue several minutes' angst in the Sky commentary box about ill-disciplined bowlers and umpires who don't bother checking for no-balls anymore. If Finn's heel had been behind the line, rather than eight yards over it, he would finally have had a wicket to his name, and England would be right back in the contest. So, at any rate, goes the unspoken assumption.

But let's try something that isn't often tried in the Sky commentary box: let's try thinking about this for a moment. If Finn's delivery had been legal, it would not have pitched where it did - probably would have been several inches shorter - for the simple reason that Finn would have delivered it from a few inches further back. It would likely also have been straighter, given the angle of the delivery. And slower! It takes less time to travel 21-and-a-bit yards than the licit 22.

Smith, in other words, would have been facing an entirely different delivery. Is there any justification for assuming (as everyone does) that he would have nicked that one, too? I don't think there is. Belike he would have whopped it to the fence.

The difference between a foot fault and a legitimate ball is roughly equivalent to the difference between an outside edge and a play-and-miss, or an outside edge and one of those bat-shimmying miscues so beloved of the slow-motion montages, which is to say that it makes all the difference in the world.

Could we please stop being stupid about this now?