Overstepping The Line

After the first Test in Brisbane Hashim Amla said that the intimidation tactics used by the Australians against South Africa were “funny”, however he said he still enjoyed the moment and all the intensity his opponents brought to the drawn Test.

During South Africa’s second innings the Australian team were sure Amla had nicked the ball to the wicketkeeper, Matthew Wade but after a review he was still given not out. As a result he received a stream of abuse and he was not the only batsman to find himself on the end of Australia’s mean side. 

At one stage there was an altercation with Graeme Smith and James Pattinson. The South African captain was taking his time in between deliveries and was constantly distracted by movement behind the bowler. Needless to say the fiery fast bowler was not amused.

The sledging from the Australians and the rearguard action from the visitors all added to a thrilling end to the match despite neither finishing on the winning side.

Some may feel that the Australians overstepped the proverbial line while others will believe that it is all part of the game.

Amidst all the harsh words that were exchanged there was a more obvious example of overstepping the line.

The number of times the bowlers from both teams overstepped the popping crease will be a major concern.

Australia bowled 10 no-balls in the Test while South Africa amassed 23 no-balls in one innings.

As technology plays an ever increasing role in the game new ways on how best to use the available equipment are being introduced. While some sports like football are resisting the urge to use technology for reasons such as it wastes time, cricket is continually finding new places for it.

The third umpire now has a camera that is fixed on the front crease in order to check for no-balls. As soon as the TV umpire spots the possibility of a no-ball on a wicket-taking delivery he will get on the radio to the standing umpire to halt the batsman’s walk back to the dressing room. The third umpire will then verify whether or not it was a legal delivery.

Sounds like a good way to save time and in theory the correct decision will be made. But what are the consequences of the addition of this camera?

The first Test of South Africa’s tour to Australia saw four wickets taken off no-balls. None of these infringements  were called by the standing umpire. It took an intervention from the third umpire to save the batsman.

Could the addition of the new camera at the disposal of the TV umpire possibly have a negative effect on the standing umpires? There has already been questions asked about the Decision Review System and whether or not it will impact the on-field umpires confidence to make decisions.

During the Test there were other instances, besides the wicket-taking deliveries, when the no-ball was correctly called by the standing umpires, Asad Rauf and Billy Bowden.

One explanation for umpires Rauf and Bowden missing a no-ball is that they simply had a bad Test. It happens to all elite umpires.

Then again, the umpires may start to become too reliant on the ‘man upstairs’. There were more instances when no-balls were missed by all the officials and the replays exposed these errors.

If those no-balls are not called and a wicket is not taken does it really  matter? In the context of the game maybe not but it certainly could affect the bowlers.

If the bowler doesn’t know that he is overstepping the line how does he know to fix it?