ICC to review no-ball policy

Mike Selvey in his column for The Guardian had an interesting proposal for changing the no-ball, suggesting that all wickets be checked for a no-ball and that the penalty for a no-ball should be four or even six runs. He felt that reviewing all line calls would be too cumbersome.

Quote:Hence I think both the playing conditions and the law itself need a change. In the latter case, it has always seemed wholly absurd that the bowler is given another crack at the batsman with an extra delivery, on the back of a transgression. Fast bowlers in the past frequently took advantage of this by “going through the crease” to soften up a tailender knowing they had deliveries in hand.

Why, in an extreme example, should the last batsman, facing the final delivery to draw a match, be compelled to face yet another if the bowler no-balls? So either give the batting side the option of forgoing the extra delivery (and with it the runs) or of taking those runs that accrue and facing it. Alternatively, just make the extra delivery a free-hit in any case so that no wicket can result from it.

I would also increase the penalty for no-balling to something more stringent, say four or even six runs. As with the debate about Mankading, the simple solution to the no-ball debate is for bowlers to stay behind the line. Hammer them, and the team, if they overstep and they will soon stop.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/20...aw-cricket

Good rationale by Selvey :  I concur.

those are some good ideas from selvey

[quote author=explorerx7 link=topic=102741.msg679291#msg679291 date=1455712861]
It's all about the technology.Technology is a wonderful intervention, however, it has it's dark side; reducing the need for the human factor thus putting many people out of a job. There may come a time when the technology would be set up on the field with a reviewer in the stands, thus eliminating the need for umpires. I don't think this is a far-fetched observation, seeing how the role of the umpire has been gradually diminished over the years.
[/quote]

As far as technology goes, I can see your point, and maybe in the future it will mean that there's no need for umpires actually on the field of play, or if we do still have them, most of the decision making will be out of their hands.

Would this be good for cricket in general though? We'd basically be looking at a game controlled by machines with no room for human errors, and I think that takes something away from a sport.

All the rules review has been on protecting the batsman and once again that is being done.