When is a no-ball a dead ball?

[Cluds]

I want to canvass opinions on an incident that happened yesterday in a league cricket match.  50 overs per side with fielding restrictions - 4 men in the circle.

In the 47th over of the second innings the striker's umpire called "No Ball" thinking there were only 3 in the circle as the bowler was entering his delivery stride.  The ball was short and the batsman hit it for four. The bowler's end umpire informed his colleague that the call was an error and there had in fact been four men inside the circle.  After several minutes discussion the umpires called and signalled "Dead ball" and cancelled the boundary 4.  The match was subsequently a tie, clearly the chasing side would have won if the 4 had been allowed to stand.

I was a spectator,but as a qualified umpire I asked them after the game, (Nicely!) to explain their decision.  Their view was that the early call of no ball had put off the bowler and that the fairest action was to rule the delivery as dead at the moment it left the hand, thus cancelling both the delivery and the boundary.  The captain of the batting side was clearly very unhappy, but we cannot find anything in the laws or playing conditions to cover this situation.

Any thoughts?

[tippex2]

I think the decision's at least justifiable (not unambiguously right, but arguably so). I'd be very surprised if the bowler was distracted - a no-ball for a breach of the fielding restrictions isn't normally made until "the instant of delivery", so there shouldn't have been any time to process the call and be distracted.

It's at least theoretically possible the batsman could have been distracted or changed his shot in response to the call, but he wasn't disadvantaged (unless he might have hit the ball for 6...). If the batting side argue for the result of the delivery to stand, presumably they would do the same if the result had been a dismissal?

You don't mention explicitly, but presumably the ball was replayed, and not allowed to count as one of the over?

The fact that the decision ended up affecting the outcome of the game is irrelevant to the question of whether it was correct or not, but it does mean that it's more high-profile and the players will care about it more. All in all, an awkward situation, probably handled as well as was reasonably possible.

[sillypoint]

An interesting dilemma. My thoughts:

1.   Strictly speaking, the No Ball call should have been allowed to stand, and the boundary, as would have been the case if the bowler's end umpire had not intervened. However, he did intervene. Assuming the striker's end umpire accepted that his call had been incorrect, then I think the action taken was probably a reasonable way to handle an awkward situation. Provided, of course, that the delivery was completely cancelled and rebowled.

2.   This raises a question about umpires intervening when they perceive an error to have been made by their colleague. Most umpires frown upon this. It would certainly be more judicious, as the other umpire, to not intervene. But on the other hand if you are CERTAIN that an injustice has occurred, should you intervene to attempt to have it corrected? It is a moot point, and cause for endless debate. Ultimately, as umpires our aim should be to get it right, so if our colleague offers us a way to overcome a major error should we accept the inevitable egg on the face and correct the situation? And just how far would you take this approach?

3.   Whether the bowler or any other player was distracted is irrelevant, just as it would be if the call had in fact been correct.

4.   Would the umpires in this situation have acted the same if there was no boundary scored, but one of the batsmen had been run out? Would they have done the same thing if it had been the last ball of the match, instead of the 47th over?

[gooders]

The only point I would make is, don't be in too big a hurry to call no ball from the striker's end. What would he have done if the bowler had failed to deliver the ball?
This season, I have volunteered to stand with new umpires when I am not busy with assessments. When getting ready to go out, they have all started to put the law book in their coats, until I point out to them, What will the players think of their ability if they are seen to be referring to the law book?

[tippex2]

May 17, 2016 17:42:53 GMT gooders said:

The only point I would make is, don't be in too big a hurry to call no ball from the striker's end. What would he have done if the bowler had failed to deliver the ball?
This season, I have volunteered to stand with new umpires when I am not busy with assessments. When getting ready to go out, they have all started to put the law book in their coats, until I point out to them, What will the players think of their ability if they are seen to be referring to the law book?

If the bowler fails to deliver the ball, you revoke the call of no-ball without a problem (Law 24.10).

While I don't routinely carry one, I don't have a problem with having a Law book on the field of play - firstly, if a player starts getting shirty about something he's seen on TV that is contrary to the Laws, being able to show him chapter and verse is helpful in getting him to calm down. Also, there are reference cards with extracts of Laws provided explicitly for on-field reference - I can't see a meaningful difference between referring to these or referring to the Laws themselves. Surely it's far better to double check whether a given breach of Law 42 attracts one warning or two before a concrete sanction rather than half-remember, get it wrong, and cause big problems down the line.

[sillypoint]

Re: "being able to show him chapter and verse is helpful in getting him to calm down"—so is saying, "after the game I'll show you the relevant Laws". Don't carry the Laws on the field.

[puzzled]

Better than Law book or cards is the Umpires Log Book from Acumen. It summarises all the penalties rather like the ECB cards BUT no-one will take any notice of you looking at the little yellow book because you do that every over in order to record the bowler etc. I also look at it to calculate the over rate.

[sillypoint]

And better than both is a full knowledge and understanding of the Laws.

[gooders]

I recall in one match, standing at the striker's end, a delivery which my colleague considered a deliberate high full pitched one. He came over to me and informed me of that. My response to him was "Well, you know what you need to do". With that, he instructed the captain to remove him from the attack, and that he would not be allowed to bowl again in that innings, and that a report would be made as appropriate.
As I returned to my position at square leg, I heard the club secretary insisting that my colleague couldn't do that. Rather that take the law book out onto the field of play for such incidents, I advised him that if he would care to visit the umpires' room after the game, we would gladly show him the law which not only says he could do that, but that he should do that.
Needless to say, we had no further problems that day.

[nazmulahsan]

Every umpire commits error. It was a foolish act of bowler's end umpire to interfere in this situation. In fact it is not his jurisdiction to call no ball for circle restriction. Obviously the delivery was counted as one of the over. The batting side was sufferer for the umpires.