The current argument in football is that VAR is sucking the life out of the sport because checks for offside after every goal ruin the moment of spontaneous joy. In cricket, despite technology having been a feature of the international game for more than a decade, there is a similar problem. That is because the lack of automated checks for front‑foot no-balls until something of significance occurs means bowlers are being scrutinised for overstepping only after they have taken a wicket.
This was the case shortly after lunch on the second day of this second Test when England’s Stuart Broad produced a beautiful ball to dismiss Rassie van der Dussen only for the “wicket” to be chalked off after checks on his front foot – of which nothing was behind the line – deemed it an illegal delivery.
The moment of joy – England’s players basking in a plan coming together and the massed ranks of visiting supporters celebrating a potentially match-defining fourth wicket with South Africa having only 86 runs on the board – evaporated as soon as the replay of Broad’s left foot came up on the big screen. Not even the sight of Table Mountain behind it could quell the anguishfor the English.
As the former England seamer Ryan Sidebottom said on the BBC’s Cricket Social: “You need a little bit of luck in Test cricket and Van der Dussen has had it. The no-ball has changed the game.”
South Africa’s No 5 was on 16 at the time. He would go on to make 68 before finally being dismissed – this time legally by Sam Curran – in the final session.
Now the first point here is that ultimately Broad had only himself to blame for misjudging his run-in. Much like Liverpool’s Roberto Firmino or Norwich’s Teemu Pukki had only themselves to blame for having goals ruled out in the Premier League this season because their armpits were offside.
That’s how fine the margins are for fast bowlers in Test cricket. Yes, maybe they could give themselves more room for error in terms of where their front-foot will land. But bowling isn’t that simple and it’s not as if Broad is the only one doing it.
Ben Stokes, shortly after Broad was denied Van der Dussen’s wicket, started his first spell after lunch with a no-ball. There were plenty more after that, too.
Nor is it just England. On the second day of last month’s Test match between Australia and Pakistan at the Gabba, the umpires failed to spot 21 front-foot no-balls.
There are two ways to solve this problem. First, umpires could simply warn bowlers when they feel they are getting close to overstepping. Some already do this and indeed on rare occasions they actually call front-foot no-balls after spotting them with the naked eye. The problem here is the decision review system. Such is the scrutiny on their every judgment on caught behind or lbw dismissals, their main focus has to be on the other end. That is their priority and in a perfect world they would be able to do both effectively. But they are human, after all, and imperfect decisions – or compromises on where the umpire’s main focus is – are made all the time.
At present, umpires are being castigated for missing no-balls and bowlers are being hammered for overstepping. The solution to this would be to give the TV umpire – one of which is on duty at every international – the responsibility for judging no-balls and thus freeing up his standing colleagues to focus entirely on the action at the other end.
This was trialled during last month’s T20 series between India and West Indies. In the first match three front-foot no-balls were picked up by the TV umpire.
This year’s Indian Premier League will also use the same system after last year’s tournament was shrouded by controversy over no-balls – chiefly when Virat Kohli’s Royal Challengers Bangalore team lost a narrow game against Mumbai Indians after the umpire, Sundaram Ravi, missed Lasith Malinga overstepping when bowling the final delivery of the match.
This appears the way forward for cricket, but there is a third way. Maybe players, fans and commentators can accept that human error is a part of sport and we remain with the status quo?
Certainly in football, that way of thinking is gaining credence again after the bout of VAR controversies so far in this season’s Premier League. Yet perhaps cricket is too far down the road in terms of technology to have such a laissez‑faire attitude to officiating errors.
