Quantcast

Lehmann's solution to no-ball debate

Australia coach reveals his preference as he plans to take topic to ICC's Cricket Committee

As a member of the ICC's influential Cricket Committee that examines and recommends changes to the game's laws, Australia coach Darren Lehmann knows there are some measures that are easier to tackle than others.

But in the wake of last week's umpiring howler in which an incorrect no-ball call gifted Adam Voges the opportunity to score another 232 runs and to a large extent decided a Test match, Lehmann and his rival NZ coach Mike Hesson agree that expanding the use of technology to adjudicate bowler foot faults represents a conversation that is long overdue.

Lehmann's view, with his committee man's hat jammed tightly down, is that the on-field calling of no-balls should be a responsibility outsourced to an official other than the umpire at the bowler's end.

WATCH: Illingworth howler gifts Voges a reprieve

Which is the role England's Richard  Illingworth was filling when he nailed NZ's Doug Bracewell for infringing at virtually the same moment that Bracewell pegged back Voges off-stump, which would have seen the Australia batsman out for seven and his team in a precarious position.

From which Voges was ultimately able to save them, by pushing on to score 239 having been allowed to continue his innings due to Illingworth's misjudgement.

Lehmann's off-the-cuff suggestion when quizzed about ways in which a repeat of the gaffe – that has reportedly left Illingworth feeling "distraught" - might be avoided in the future was that the umpire at square leg should be invested with responsibility to call no-balls on the field.

However, there is a growing school of thought that the job of invigilating on where bowlers land their front foot across 90 overs of a Test match day should no longer reside with the on-field officials, but be entrusted in total to technology.

Which might mean that front-foot no-balls are only checked for when a wicket falls, or an on-field decision is referred to the video umpire in recognition of the unwieldy delays that double-checking the legitimacy of every ball bowled would have on a day's playing schedule.

Save for those occasions when a bowler lands so far beyond the front crease that even the most cautious umpire can safely make a correct call.

That would also mean batters no longer have the benefit of taking a free swing at a ball called illegal in real time in the knowledge they can't be dismissed, nor would batting teams pocket an extra run from every instance of a bowler over-stepping.

But Lehmann conceded that unless the offender is a slow-through-the-air spinner, no batsman feasibly has time to react to the 'no-ball' call in order to change the stroke they initially shaped to play and thereby take advantage of the 'free hit'.

"It's something we've got to talk about at the ICC Cricket Committee," said Lehmann, who is joined on that panel by former Test captains Anil Kumble (chair), Andrew Strauss, Mark Taylor, Kumar Sangakkara, Clare Connor and ex-international umpire Steve Davis.

"I sit on that, so I have my views but there's a lot of views and a lot of good players who have played a lot of cricket on that (committee).

"We've got to get the solution right for umpires as well.

"It's a part of the game, but I know it's not right."

Quick Single: Watch Lehmann's post-Wellington press conference

Lehmann admitted that the adjudication of line infringements, the sort that elite level tennis now employs and trusts technology to police, is an area that requires a solution for the sake of players as well as for on-field officials.

But he said calls for every delivery to be monitored by fixed cameras and referred for off-field arbitration ignore the disruption that would impose on a day's play.

"Where do you go? How far do you go? How many no-balls are there in a game?" Lehmann asked rhetorically when pushed for ways that the ICC Cricket Committee might address a matter that would appear far more straightforward to get right than marginal lbw calls or barely detectable edges.

"How long will the day go, how many overs will we miss out on?

"All those questions have to be asked.

"If you review every ball, I'm sure there's more no-balls in a day than not, you lose overs and then fans don't get to see 90 overs.

"We have to make sure we entertain the best we can and the public are getting 90 overs where possible.

"It's a tough one but we've got to come up with the best solution somehow."

WATCH: No-ball offences cost Aussies wickets

Hesson, who admitted his team was disappointed but that their spirit was not broken by such a blatantly wrong and pivotal decision, said the aim of technology-assisted umpiring aids must be to deliver more correct outcomes more of the time.

But he acknowledged that no system – no matter well designed or implemented to try and  eradicate human error – will ever be totally infallible.

WATCH: Lyon survives DRS controversy in Adelaide Test

"Players, coaches, spectators want the more decisions right the better," Hesson said in Wellington today in the wake of the Black Caps first Test loss on home soil in three years.

"If we can use more technology to do that then decisions like that (error last Friday) become less influential.

"It's something the ICC are aware of and will be discussed.

Quick Single: ICC to probe role of technology for no-balls

"There's lots of water to cross under the bridge before we're even close to that (on-field umpires being wholly replaced by technology).

"Umpires are assisted in many different ways through technology and I think it's made the game better.

"It works better than it used to.  You're getting your stats (for correct decisions) from 85 (per cent correct) to 95 which is far better than 85.

"But I think we're kidding ourselves if we ever think we'll get a 100 per cent proof system no matter what it is.

"That's the nature of the game we play."