The returns crease / no balls

[gilo]

There was an interesting interpretation of the returns crease no ball law recently on TV (the one day final?) where the TV umpire ruled that although the bowlers back foot clearly came down across and touched the crease, the initial point of contact of the toe of his boot was within the crease and, therefore, not a no ball.
I always considered the law to be a simple one - in that if any part of the bowlers back foot physically touched the returns crease in the delivery stride it was a no ball (it could be raised over the crease but not actually cut it). The law is written that simply.

[Acumen]

Tom Smith page 195, last three lines emphasises that it is the point at which the foot first lands.

[gilo]

But so hard for an umpire to judge in real time without TV to assist

[sillypoint]

Law 21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease on the side of his/her stated mode of delivery.

The operative words are: "land within and not touching"

As with the front foot, what the foot does subsequent to landing does not affect the decision. As you say, it is tricky to judge but you must do your best. If you suspect a bowler is close to encroaching, try taking a couple of steps backwards so that you can see the back foot landing. It is also a good idea to be seen to be examining the area closely once the ball is dead, and maybe giving the bowler a signal or quiet word; that can often head off the problem.