Pietersen calls for 'no-ball' review

Pa
Wednesday 23 December 2009 15:18 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Kevin Pietersen sees "no excuse" for batsmen still being given out to no-balls in the technological era of the decision review system.

Pietersen was bowled by a delivery from Morne Morkel in the first innings of England's Centurion draw against South Africa, only to discover on returning to the dressing room that it should have been called a front-foot no-ball.

"I think something needs to be done about it," he said on Wednesday morning at England's team hotel, where they have begun preparations for the second Test of a four-match series at Kingsmead on Boxing Day. "If you're going to use the referral system the way we're using it now, it should go all the way. You can win and lose Test matches on no-balls."

The only way such a decision could be overturned, under the International Cricket Council's current system, would be for the non-striking batsman to spot the overstep and ask for a third-umpire review.

The same anomaly was highlighted by England coach Andy Flower on Tuesday and Pietersen claims international players the world over are united in the belief the situation needs addressing.

He added: "For a (non-striking) batsman to be standing and watching whether the bowler is bowling a no-ball and then concentrating on the other end doesn't seem good to me.

"If you're going to use the system we've got, you may as well use it properly. We all believe the same thing - the South Africans, the Australians, everybody."

The situation is bound to arise again soon and Pietersen fears the stakes may be even higher next time.

He cites as an example the last-wicket stand between Graham Onions and Paul Collingwood, which salvaged a draw in the first Test and therefore means they arrive still level at what was once Pietersen's own home ground.

"You could lose a batsman," he said. "If Graham Onions had lost his wicket to a no-ball that wasn't (ruled) a no-ball in the last over of a Test match and we'd lost the Test series, with the technology we have nowadays, there's no excuse for it."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in