Ravindra Jadeja’s dismissal on the sixth day of the World Test Championship ultimate prompted a pointy response from followers when lots of them puzzled whether or not Neil Wagner’s supply was a no-ball because of his back-foot house.
Wagner, who was charging into Jadeja, impressed the southpaw with some scintillating short-pitched bowling. Wagner’s technique paid off when Jadeja hit what was over him and Watling acquired an outdoor edge, who grabbed it simply.
While the Black Caps celebrated the wicket, a number of followers had been crying on social media that Wagner’s again leg had crossed the return crease, and therefore it was a no-ball.
According to me, Wagner has bowled round 5-6 such no balls in the previous couple of overs. I’m watching Hindi commentary and am actually shocked that besides that one time nobody is looking it out @cricketaakash talked about this. Who will inform the umpires to look into this? https://t.co/NacXKvBXJh
— Ricky talks cricket (@CricRicky) 23 June 2021
#staraikelungal Hi Balaji Sir, Wagner’s again foot touched the aspect crease throughout Jadeja’s wicket however it was not known as a no-ball, are you able to inform why it was not given a no-ball?
— Dare_Daniel_Raj (@DareDanielRaj1) 23 June 2021
Replays confirmed that Wagner had crossed the return crease earlier than bowling, however the choice was upheld after umpire referral.
However, there was no error and Wagner was not on the mistaken aspect of the regulation. His leg had recovered earlier than crossing the road, which meant the supply was legitimate.
What does the regulation say?
According to the Guardians of the Game, MCC, the touchdown place of the foot is decisive in arriving at a no-ball name or supply to be truthful with respect to the toes in a supply stride,
21.5.1 The bowler’s again foot should land inside and never contact the return crease within the method specified for his supply
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
