Australia v England, 5th Test, Sydney, 2nd day January 4, 2011

No-balls hurt Australia

47

Mitchell Johnson wants umpires to call no-balls immediately after Australia were the victims for the second consecutive Test when a front-foot decision was referred by an official. Michael Beer was celebrating Alastair Cook as his first Test wicket when Billy Bowden asked for - and then received - confirmation that the debutant spinner had over-stepped.

"If the umpires know it's a no-ball I think they should call it, instead of waiting to call it," Johnson said. Bowden had a hunch Beer had gone over but he waited for the catch to be taken at mid-on before requesting a replay.

"Everyone's going to have different opinions on it," Johnson said. "I suppose it's not a bad thing, but it can be frustrating. I suppose you've just got to get your foot behind the line."

Johnson was the one who transgressed last week when Matt Prior edged on 5 at the MCG before making the hosts pay by finishing with 85. Cook was 46 when he miscued today and was unbeaten on 61 at stumps.

It was a tough entry to the elite level for Beer, who bowled steadily during his nine overs, and his team-mates made an effort to cheer him up. What it shows is that Beer has learned one of the attack's bad habits very quickly. The Australians have always struggled with no-balls and it is common practice for them to go over the line by a long way at training.

"We always have this argument between batters and bowlers," Johnson said. "We always try to find a way to get behind the line. We all try and do it. Whether you feel enclosed with the nets being there, I don't know what it is. I still bowl half a foot over in the nets but I don't know how we're going to fix that."

James Anderson said the no-ball referrals represented "good cricket" because the right decision was made. "I think they should do it more often, I don't think they use it enough," he said. "A no-ball is a no-ball. You should get the correct decision when he's bowled one."

England's approach to over-stepping with David Saker, the bowling coach, is much more meticulous than Australia's sloppy method under Troy Cooley. "We think it's a very important part of our job to stay behind the line - even more so in one-day cricket," Anderson said."We try and practise it in the nets, and I hope we can replicate that out there."

The practice certainly seems to be working, as England have bowled just seven no-balls in the series, while Australia's tally stands at 19.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on January 5, 2011, 7:10 GMT

    Instead of Field umpire or the fielding captain or the batsman to review the umpire decision, the third umpire should watch all the balls and the decision made by the field umpire if the decision is wrong third umpire should over rule it automaticaly then only 100% correct decision will be made.

  • samlil on January 5, 2011, 6:49 GMT

    It's like the speeding driver complaining how unlucky he was to be caught. Don't do it and there is no chance of being caught. If you think Cook should have been given out of an illegitimate delivery because the umpire asked for confirmation, then we had best scrap the referral system altogether.

  • aracer on January 4, 2011, 23:40 GMT

    I think the cyclops idea was dismissed in the comments on another article. There must surely be an easy way to do it with technology though - even if that is as low tech as the 3rd umpire watching the screen for no-balls live and then passing the info to the on-field umpire. Anything to remove the need for the on-field to have to switch their focus during the course of a 90mph delivery - it's always seemed a ridiculous thing to have to do when aiming to get correct umpiring decisions.

  • on January 4, 2011, 22:23 GMT

    I thought I saw that Ricky Ponting was out to a no-ball in the 1st Innings in Melbourne. I only saw the replay once but it was extremely close. I would have liked to have seen it again. I don't recall seeing any of the bowler's foot behind the line. Why then aren't all wicket taking deliveries referred for no-balls? No commentators mentioned the Ponting dismissal when they showed the side-on shot - I think it was Anderson bowling. As long as it is consistent and the right decision is made. Anyway I don't like the idea of Umpires relying on the technology. The Umpires should be penalised if they do this - it's their job! Why not just put a sensor in the ground like used to happen with Cyclops in the tennis? In the end as long as the right decision is made and it is evenly applied who can complain.

  • Truemans_Ghost on January 4, 2011, 21:02 GMT

    Johnsons last words sum it up- keep your foot behind the line! So what if it only 2cms over- cricket is a game of small numbers of cms- the difference between an edge and a miss for a start. To get a wicket a bowler has to get a lot of things right- and delivering a legal delivery is one of themThe alternative to not allowing reviews is to have a batsman feeling unjustly dismissed. Australia have suffered this time- because it has been Australians who have overstepped- it won't always be so.

  • shadymse on January 4, 2011, 20:41 GMT

    I really dont see what all the fuss is, it was a no ball, simple, as. If you dont bowl no balls then you have nothing to moan about. There are 2 chaps on here who I would say are club cricketers, and never bowled a no ball. Johnson and Beer are both pros and get paid to bowl thousands of deliveries in the nets and still bowl them, should try just that little bit harder then boys! And Arsh, if bowling was like smoking the Govt would want to tax it so lets not give them any ideas eh?

  • 5wombats on January 4, 2011, 20:14 GMT

    @Simon Smith'; "the fact the Aussies took a couple of wickets with illegitimate deliveries is just down to bad luck." Mmmm - your comment is open to wide mis-interpretation there mate. If you have a rule - like the front foot rule, which is pretty easy to understand, then it's a RULE and rules need to be enforced - if it isn't enforced then it's not a rule, just a free-for-all. Don't care how it's enforced so long as the rule is enforced. The technology is there and the proceedure agreed. It's there to protect both sides interests. It's no good whinging about the rule if it is enforced against you. No sympathy here and I don't agree with Warne either. It's just bad cricket. It was a no-ball. Not sure why we're even talking about it to be honest.

  • _Oracle_ on January 4, 2011, 18:44 GMT

    The reason the umpire called for reference is because Beer's foot/heal never touched the ground so the umpire didn't know exactly where the foot actually was.. Good reference.. I am all for UDRS as well.

  • phoenixsteve on January 4, 2011, 18:31 GMT

    So Mitch has figured " you've got to get your foot behind the line" eh? and someone said fast bowlers weren't smart..... the guy's a genuis!!! COME ON ENGLAND!!!

  • on January 4, 2011, 17:37 GMT

    the fielding side now needs to assume on any appeal being given out that that does not mean the ball is dead - that they need to play for any run out possibility too - as they would have done if a signal of no-ball had been given - imagine the mess of a decision in which player skies the delivery and is caught in the outfield - given out, walking off, sees that review is called for looks to make their ground - bails knocked off - another review for run out as well as review for no ball. This does not make sense - umpire is there to make decision - and their decision of no ball or not impacts on how the game is played when the ball is live.

  • on January 5, 2011, 7:10 GMT

    Instead of Field umpire or the fielding captain or the batsman to review the umpire decision, the third umpire should watch all the balls and the decision made by the field umpire if the decision is wrong third umpire should over rule it automaticaly then only 100% correct decision will be made.

  • samlil on January 5, 2011, 6:49 GMT

    It's like the speeding driver complaining how unlucky he was to be caught. Don't do it and there is no chance of being caught. If you think Cook should have been given out of an illegitimate delivery because the umpire asked for confirmation, then we had best scrap the referral system altogether.

  • aracer on January 4, 2011, 23:40 GMT

    I think the cyclops idea was dismissed in the comments on another article. There must surely be an easy way to do it with technology though - even if that is as low tech as the 3rd umpire watching the screen for no-balls live and then passing the info to the on-field umpire. Anything to remove the need for the on-field to have to switch their focus during the course of a 90mph delivery - it's always seemed a ridiculous thing to have to do when aiming to get correct umpiring decisions.

  • on January 4, 2011, 22:23 GMT

    I thought I saw that Ricky Ponting was out to a no-ball in the 1st Innings in Melbourne. I only saw the replay once but it was extremely close. I would have liked to have seen it again. I don't recall seeing any of the bowler's foot behind the line. Why then aren't all wicket taking deliveries referred for no-balls? No commentators mentioned the Ponting dismissal when they showed the side-on shot - I think it was Anderson bowling. As long as it is consistent and the right decision is made. Anyway I don't like the idea of Umpires relying on the technology. The Umpires should be penalised if they do this - it's their job! Why not just put a sensor in the ground like used to happen with Cyclops in the tennis? In the end as long as the right decision is made and it is evenly applied who can complain.

  • Truemans_Ghost on January 4, 2011, 21:02 GMT

    Johnsons last words sum it up- keep your foot behind the line! So what if it only 2cms over- cricket is a game of small numbers of cms- the difference between an edge and a miss for a start. To get a wicket a bowler has to get a lot of things right- and delivering a legal delivery is one of themThe alternative to not allowing reviews is to have a batsman feeling unjustly dismissed. Australia have suffered this time- because it has been Australians who have overstepped- it won't always be so.

  • shadymse on January 4, 2011, 20:41 GMT

    I really dont see what all the fuss is, it was a no ball, simple, as. If you dont bowl no balls then you have nothing to moan about. There are 2 chaps on here who I would say are club cricketers, and never bowled a no ball. Johnson and Beer are both pros and get paid to bowl thousands of deliveries in the nets and still bowl them, should try just that little bit harder then boys! And Arsh, if bowling was like smoking the Govt would want to tax it so lets not give them any ideas eh?

  • 5wombats on January 4, 2011, 20:14 GMT

    @Simon Smith'; "the fact the Aussies took a couple of wickets with illegitimate deliveries is just down to bad luck." Mmmm - your comment is open to wide mis-interpretation there mate. If you have a rule - like the front foot rule, which is pretty easy to understand, then it's a RULE and rules need to be enforced - if it isn't enforced then it's not a rule, just a free-for-all. Don't care how it's enforced so long as the rule is enforced. The technology is there and the proceedure agreed. It's there to protect both sides interests. It's no good whinging about the rule if it is enforced against you. No sympathy here and I don't agree with Warne either. It's just bad cricket. It was a no-ball. Not sure why we're even talking about it to be honest.

  • _Oracle_ on January 4, 2011, 18:44 GMT

    The reason the umpire called for reference is because Beer's foot/heal never touched the ground so the umpire didn't know exactly where the foot actually was.. Good reference.. I am all for UDRS as well.

  • phoenixsteve on January 4, 2011, 18:31 GMT

    So Mitch has figured " you've got to get your foot behind the line" eh? and someone said fast bowlers weren't smart..... the guy's a genuis!!! COME ON ENGLAND!!!

  • on January 4, 2011, 17:37 GMT

    the fielding side now needs to assume on any appeal being given out that that does not mean the ball is dead - that they need to play for any run out possibility too - as they would have done if a signal of no-ball had been given - imagine the mess of a decision in which player skies the delivery and is caught in the outfield - given out, walking off, sees that review is called for looks to make their ground - bails knocked off - another review for run out as well as review for no ball. This does not make sense - umpire is there to make decision - and their decision of no ball or not impacts on how the game is played when the ball is live.

  • on January 4, 2011, 17:23 GMT

    This does not make sense - umpire is there to make decision - and their decision of no ball or not impacts on how the game is played when the ball is live. They will be tempted to only call no ball when completely confident it is no ball on the basis that if it is a wicket ball they can review. Has there ever been an appeal against no ball when player is out caught/bowled/lbw. That would I imagine be considered unfair as the batsman would potentially have changed their shot - but the fielding side have potentially changed how they field the ball too.

  • pr3m on January 4, 2011, 17:17 GMT

    My question is this, now that the umpires have started questioning no balls on wicket taking deliveries, its obvious that they aren't paying attention to no balls throughout. Are they referring normal deliveries, which they're unsure of as well, or just the ones that happen to take a wicket? Should we move the no ball out of the on field umpire's hands completely now?

  • Trickstar on January 4, 2011, 16:57 GMT

    @JohnG It's not part of the whole URDS thing, it's a rule that got brought in a few months ago that lets the umpire use the 3rd umpire, when he thinks a bowler has over steeped, when a wicket has been taken. It was brought in because the umpires said, they had a job on getting the decisions right at the batsmen end without watching for every no ball, so they stared to make use of the 3rd umpire and it fits in with trying to get as many right decisions correct as they can, which is the whole point as far as I can see, especially when it takes hardly any time to check.

  • Biggus on January 4, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    @ElPhenomeno-Not so! I'm Australian and I'm in favour of it. @mattyboy95-Until now when we see endless slow motion replays of these things it may not have mattered but now all it takes is for someone to be given out to a no ball and partisan fans will be forever moaning that they were robbed, and I'm all for limiting the amount of ammunition we give these types. So what if it's happened twice to us and not to them, it's not a statistically meaningful difference in such a small sample. We got two in our favour in India-are you suggesting therefore that the umpires were biased in our favour there? No? As touchy as this subject is I'm all for getting the right decision, whatever it takes. It will probably take some fine tuning to find the right approach but it has to be the way forward-either that or ban slow motion replays. I know what I'd prefer.

  • on January 4, 2011, 16:10 GMT

    Sorry, but as a spinner I have to say that if you bowl a noball you deserve to be sent through the seven rings of hell. I can understand a fast bowler doing it occasionally but a slow bowler can actually see where his feet are landing. You could actually call it cheating if you wanted to because the slow bowler is able to get a different angle on the ball by bowling it across the line like that, just like you do when bowing wide of the crease! And what's with Beer's cricket boots, they look like marathon running shoes. Beer I say, stop cheating!

  • AKS286 on January 4, 2011, 15:49 GMT

    beer will be the next spin era. he will be the future legend.select beer for WC'11. he will must get chance in all format of game.

  • SprinklerSam on January 4, 2011, 15:24 GMT

    Use the technology for fairer decisions, full stop.

  • on January 4, 2011, 15:23 GMT

    In this day of technology, ICC seems to be living in viking era. Face Recognition, Biometrics are normal things now, and its pretty simple to put a technology which detects no balls. Cameras are in place already, all that needs to be done is to do pretty basic image processing. Onfiled Umpires will have more time to focus on batsmen, rather than first looking at popping crease and then looking at batsmen. Also the idea of batsmen knowing about no ball before he plays the shot is rubbish, its an unfair advantage to batsmen. No balls should always be called after batsman has played the shot. Free hit was the biggest blunder ICC has ever made in ODIs and T20s.

  • jackthelad on January 4, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    I think it's more to the point that world-class bowlers, and particularly slow ones, should just work on not bowling no-balls

  • on January 4, 2011, 15:16 GMT

    @Steven Andrews : mark Taylor and Michael slater's words from the ch9 commentary... But here is the thing..with the introduction of the law umpires call a no ball only if they are absolutely certain... Otherwise they check it only for a dismissal. Secondly, regardless of what the batsman thinks he will be given out

  • Kitschiguy on January 4, 2011, 15:10 GMT

    The Australians weren't complaining when they benefited from such rulings on their recent tour of India.

  • on January 4, 2011, 15:09 GMT

    Pretty sure the batters will see it another way Mitchell.

  • Legster on January 4, 2011, 15:02 GMT

    JohnG, I think this new rule change that was brought in first during the India-Australia series is not part of the UDRS per se. They had no UDRS in that series but umpires were still allowed to check for no-balls following dismissals, a notable example being Clarke declared not out after he got out to a no-ball off Ishant Sharma.

    You are most likely looking in the wrong place for information about this rule.

  • m_kamb on January 4, 2011, 14:36 GMT

    actually umpires are treated like god..............too much

  • ElPhenomeno on January 4, 2011, 14:35 GMT

    By every passing day with UDRS, indians are beginning to look geniuses for opposing it. I don't know what is aussi tick here, but they bought into the system but now don't like it the way it is. Maybe we should just hand the UDRS user manual over to aussies and they can customize it to their preference - for everyone. If you're going to use it, use it fully or don't use it at all. And why shouldn't the umpires have the ability to refer anything. The idea is to get the "correct" decision and if referring fecilitaes that, then thats that. As i said, use it fully or don't use it at all.

  • on January 4, 2011, 14:30 GMT

    @Marcio: It's happened a few times in India and South Africa recently as well.

  • on January 4, 2011, 14:23 GMT

    this is the problem with this. If an umpire calls a no ball and the batsman hits it and gets caught, the fielding captain refers it and it is shown to be a legal delivery, what happens then. Does the umpire give the batsman out, or does the batsman say well i heard you call no ball so i tried to smash it, meaning if you didnt call the no ball i wouldnt have smashed it in the air. This is opening a can of worms and what happened to playing by the umpires whistle and getting on with the game no matter the decision. If only shane warne played with this rule, he would have a test century. Vettori bowled a no ball which wasnt picked up when he was dismissed. I dont like this rule looking at the no ball, the umpire should make a decision then and there.

  • on January 4, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    @simon smith: really, not that great a difference statistically? Are u serious... Englands top4 have all got centuries... Englands leading wicket taker has got 21 wickets... Australia have got 2 heavy innings trouncings on flat tracks... And yet to you, it is not statistically significant... Dream on... England 3-1

  • realnavtej on January 4, 2011, 14:03 GMT

    @marcio...remember gayle's latest triple ton....of course nash used the review but he was pretty sure it was a no ball...

  • mattyboy95 on January 4, 2011, 13:53 GMT

    I swear that some australian wickets have been taken from a no-ball, mind you i am going of normal replays focused on the ball side-on rather than the foot but some of them were mighty close.

    People have been dissmissed off no-balls since the start, and no one really cares that much, half the time no one notices. Look how long it took till someone notice vetorii's no-ball when Warne was on 99?

  • jadhavkedars on January 4, 2011, 13:40 GMT

    Mr. JohnG , I am not sure whether if you are up to date with the rest of the world . The laws have indeed been changed recently regarding calling noballs and offering light to batsmen . I won't say umpires are faultless but they should be having little more knowledge than you and me ;)

  • Biggus on January 4, 2011, 13:40 GMT

    @JohnG-I don't pretend to be an authority on this but apparently during the recent Aus/Ind series Clarke was recalled by Billy Bowden in similar circumstances when dismissed by Ishant Sharma. There are some comments relating to this here-http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2010-11/content/story/494259.html?comments=all#comments

  • on January 4, 2011, 13:10 GMT

    @marcio: yeah mate, in the India aus series(the law was in effect fro 1 October 2010), aus got spared twice due to ishant and sreesanth bowling no balls . Michael Clarke was one batsman and there was one other Aussie batsman. Similarly guptill got reprieved when sree again overstepped in the India nz series... These calls on no balls were made by use of referral to the 3rd umpire...similarly ishant was recalled in the ind sa series when morkel overstepped...so no it's not the first instance... And it's being done so that fairer decisions are made...and it's done with one side only cause the English bowlers keep their front foot behind the line when they take wickets(finn keeps at least half a foot behind the line as does bresnan) just wanted to correct a comment made by warnie today when he "felt for beer" and said if it was India that was just out..India said no to referral systems...but this is not udrs...so India never disagreed to this rule of having no balls checked.

  • Bingoe on January 4, 2011, 13:05 GMT

    Got to agree with Allan Towle, I've bowled 130-150 overs per season for 25 years, still not bowled a no ball and never expect to. To Arsh, yes I agree it's more than moving your marker back 6 inches - it's about sorting your runup out! Which these guys really should be able to do.

  • Vindaliew on January 4, 2011, 12:57 GMT

    Beer is a spinner. If the no-ball was called early (I rarely see spinners overstep) it would have disappeared over the stands.

    The opposite also stands, if a no-ball is called, and the batsman takes a free risky hit and gets "out" and then replays show it wasn't a no-ball, can you imagine how horrible it would be for the batsman? What goes round comes around, and the day Johnson gets a reprieve from a no-ball referral he'll sing from a different hymn sheet.

  • JohnG on January 4, 2011, 12:52 GMT

    According to the ICC's laws of cricket relating to the Decision Review System, an Umpire Review to the TV Umpire (Paragraph 2) can be made under the following conditions: 2.1 Run Out, Stumping, Hit Wicket 2.2 Caught Decisions 2.3 Boundary Decisions 2.4 Batsmen Running to the Same End Nowhere do the Laws Of Cricket allow an umpire to call for a TV review on a no-ball (unless there are local playing conditions which have not been listed on Cricket Australia's website). Surely as there was no no-ball called without the review then the batsman is out under the current Laws. Of course the logical thing to do is to change the Laws so as to have the Standing Umpire watch the batsman and the ball, and have the TV Umpire signal after every ball bowled whether the ball was legal (green light) or illegal (red light). Sundries of course would be added for every illegal delivery. So, can someone please explain why the Umpires did not adhere to the ICC's Laws of Cricket for the DRS?

  • on January 4, 2011, 12:51 GMT

    If we have the technology use it. They use it for close catches if the umpire is not sure. Why not no balls too? I'm sure Warney would have liked the umpire to check upstairs when he was caught on 99 off a monstrous no-ball.

  • on January 4, 2011, 12:06 GMT

    Australia have bowled more overs so its not surprising they've bowled more no-balls. The difference between the two sides is not statistically significant and the fact the Aussies took a couple of wickets with illegitimate deliveries is just down to bad luck. Anderson's net practice remarks are just a psyche-out.

  • Marcio on January 4, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    As a matter of interest has anyone else in the world of cricket ever been referred for a no-ball other than these two incidents? I have never heard of it. Why have they started doing it now, and only to one team?

  • Boris72 on January 4, 2011, 11:48 GMT

    A no-ball should be called by the umpire live, not after the fact. If they miss it then that's been happening for 100+ years and tough luck, 2cm over the line isn't going to make or break a batsman's shot. All of this decision review system clearly doesn't work they way it's going, it has changed a whole series and altered the history of the game. I'm English and I admit that without the UDRS then it may have been a lot tougher for us to have retained (or hopefully win) the Ashes. Australia have had a lot of reviews go against them even when this technology is meant to prove it either way. Just look at Harris's first innings in Adelaide. And that was made with all the technology. Shocking.

  • on January 4, 2011, 11:41 GMT

    Its not even amateur hour. I haven't bowled one in my life. Why would these 'professionals' risk bowling one? Cut the crease with half your foot if you have to inch so close. It doesn't make a difference in the end how much of your foot is behind the line. The only impact it can have is having no part behind the line and hence a no-ball. It cost Johnson in Melbourne, now it has cost Beer here. In ODI cricket they have a free-hit as well. Its ridiculous that anyone commit a front-foot no-ball let alone a national player.

  • montywolf on January 4, 2011, 11:27 GMT

    I personally hate this system. The DRS is fine but the umpires should not be given the power to do this. Soon the umpires will be given the power to refer anything. Its understandable for the umpires to check something like if the ball went for 4 or send a runout or stumping to the third umpire. But a no ball should be called by the umpire in the middle, especially when a batsman has been dismissed and then called back. If this rule continues there will be no use for the DRS, on an LBW appeal the umpire could just say hes not certain and send it to the 3rd umpire. Terrible rule and what I can imagine would of been a terrible moment for Michael Beer who deserved a wicket.

  • on January 4, 2011, 11:01 GMT

    Would Billy Bowden have asked the 3rd umpire about the no-ball if the catch was dropped? Jimmy A's right - a no ball is a no ball - regardless of whether or not a wicket was taken. Since when do umps need a replay to call a no-ball?

  • on January 4, 2011, 10:33 GMT

    No-balls are dangerous at times ! Suraj Randiv and Mohammed Amir are good examples...!

  • Chris_Howard on January 4, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    An umpire can't call a no ball on a hunch. No one minds if they don't call one coz they're uncertain. Unless it's a potential wicket. Imagine the hell that would break loose if the umpire called it on a hunch on a dismissal and was wrong?! And image the hell that would break loose if he didn't call it on a dismissal and was wrong?.

  • ns_krishnan on January 4, 2011, 10:27 GMT

    Why don't fast bowlers simply try to put their foot six inches behind the popping crease.I don't think you are going to lose too much pace because of that. An even if they try an "effort" ball like a bouncer, they may just step on the line and not over it.

  • Arsh on January 4, 2011, 10:25 GMT

    Bowling no balls is like smoking. Those who don't have the problem don't know why others can't quit. It's a very very bad habit and it's very hard to get rid of. Any bowler who has been bitten by the no-ball bug will tell you how difficult it is. It's not just about starting your runup 6 inches behind. It's much more than that. Only those who have been through this problem can understand.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Arsh on January 4, 2011, 10:25 GMT

    Bowling no balls is like smoking. Those who don't have the problem don't know why others can't quit. It's a very very bad habit and it's very hard to get rid of. Any bowler who has been bitten by the no-ball bug will tell you how difficult it is. It's not just about starting your runup 6 inches behind. It's much more than that. Only those who have been through this problem can understand.

  • ns_krishnan on January 4, 2011, 10:27 GMT

    Why don't fast bowlers simply try to put their foot six inches behind the popping crease.I don't think you are going to lose too much pace because of that. An even if they try an "effort" ball like a bouncer, they may just step on the line and not over it.

  • Chris_Howard on January 4, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    An umpire can't call a no ball on a hunch. No one minds if they don't call one coz they're uncertain. Unless it's a potential wicket. Imagine the hell that would break loose if the umpire called it on a hunch on a dismissal and was wrong?! And image the hell that would break loose if he didn't call it on a dismissal and was wrong?.

  • on January 4, 2011, 10:33 GMT

    No-balls are dangerous at times ! Suraj Randiv and Mohammed Amir are good examples...!

  • on January 4, 2011, 11:01 GMT

    Would Billy Bowden have asked the 3rd umpire about the no-ball if the catch was dropped? Jimmy A's right - a no ball is a no ball - regardless of whether or not a wicket was taken. Since when do umps need a replay to call a no-ball?

  • montywolf on January 4, 2011, 11:27 GMT

    I personally hate this system. The DRS is fine but the umpires should not be given the power to do this. Soon the umpires will be given the power to refer anything. Its understandable for the umpires to check something like if the ball went for 4 or send a runout or stumping to the third umpire. But a no ball should be called by the umpire in the middle, especially when a batsman has been dismissed and then called back. If this rule continues there will be no use for the DRS, on an LBW appeal the umpire could just say hes not certain and send it to the 3rd umpire. Terrible rule and what I can imagine would of been a terrible moment for Michael Beer who deserved a wicket.

  • on January 4, 2011, 11:41 GMT

    Its not even amateur hour. I haven't bowled one in my life. Why would these 'professionals' risk bowling one? Cut the crease with half your foot if you have to inch so close. It doesn't make a difference in the end how much of your foot is behind the line. The only impact it can have is having no part behind the line and hence a no-ball. It cost Johnson in Melbourne, now it has cost Beer here. In ODI cricket they have a free-hit as well. Its ridiculous that anyone commit a front-foot no-ball let alone a national player.

  • Boris72 on January 4, 2011, 11:48 GMT

    A no-ball should be called by the umpire live, not after the fact. If they miss it then that's been happening for 100+ years and tough luck, 2cm over the line isn't going to make or break a batsman's shot. All of this decision review system clearly doesn't work they way it's going, it has changed a whole series and altered the history of the game. I'm English and I admit that without the UDRS then it may have been a lot tougher for us to have retained (or hopefully win) the Ashes. Australia have had a lot of reviews go against them even when this technology is meant to prove it either way. Just look at Harris's first innings in Adelaide. And that was made with all the technology. Shocking.

  • Marcio on January 4, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    As a matter of interest has anyone else in the world of cricket ever been referred for a no-ball other than these two incidents? I have never heard of it. Why have they started doing it now, and only to one team?

  • on January 4, 2011, 12:06 GMT

    Australia have bowled more overs so its not surprising they've bowled more no-balls. The difference between the two sides is not statistically significant and the fact the Aussies took a couple of wickets with illegitimate deliveries is just down to bad luck. Anderson's net practice remarks are just a psyche-out.