A debated no-ball call proved crucial in the Australia-New Zealand World Cup classic today (October 28) but there was no review of the decision. Here’s why.
The penultimate play of the game saw Jimmy Neesham potentially pull off the biggest comeback in World Cup history. New Zealand needed him seven from two balls, but the all-rounder hit 58 from 38 balls when he received a high full toss from Mitchell Starc.
The ball was supposed to be hit into the stands, but Neesham could only force it into the side of his leg. He tried to score two points but was thrown out at the striker’s end. Australia won by five runs, but No. 11 Lockie Ferguson failed to hit the deciding six.
Debate soon arose over the legality of Stark’s delivery, with some arguing that it was too expensive and should have been a “no ball”. Even if the sending off had no consequences, every ball pitched had a chance of a run-out, which would have made things much easier for the Black Caps. Instead of needing six from one, they needed five from two, and his second ball from the end was a free kick.
I’ve only seen the replay once, at full speed, so have no idea.
However, if it had been ruled a no-ball, Rocky would have needed five points from two balls. His first goal was a free kick. https://t.co/yRjDiO8cUK
– Michael Appleton (@michelappleton) 2 2023 October 10
However, there was no call of the ball on the field and no review. This may seem strange at a crucial moment in a tense match, but it was correct based on the ICC protocols for the competition.
Appendix D of the ICC Playing Conditions describes ratings and Section 2.6 describes referee ratings in the case of no ball. A no-ball review is only done when the umpire on the bowler’s side has doubts about the fairness of a throw after the throw. “It has an impact on everything,” he said. .
This review was conducted after the ejection, but since the question of whether it was a no-ball or not has nothing to do with the validity of the ejection, and it does not change which batter was out. It’s possible that it wasn’t.
This, oddly enough, means it could have been better if Neesham had hit the ball in the air and been caught, as there could have been a review for a missed ball .
It is unclear whether the review changed the results. The Rules of Cricket prohibit full throws “beyond the waist height of the striker standing upright in the batting line”, and replays suggest that in this case it may have been a touch-and-go.
The question of whether technology should be used to determine critical non-wicket or boundary moments is increasingly being debated. Jofra Archer asked if it was possible to review wides during a super over in the 2019 World Cup final, while in the recent Indian Premier League, teams were required to review umpiring decisions, not just for sending offs. authority was given. However, this move is yet to be reflected in international cricket.
To bet on the World Cup with our Match Centre Partners bet365 head here.
