- ICC looking at taking all no-ball calls off the field
- New Zealand victim of incorrect no-ball call in first Test
Match referee Chris Broad says umpire Richard Illingworth was "distraught" over his no-ball howler that cost the Black Caps dearly in the first Test between Australia and New Zealand at the Basin Reserve in Wellington.
Voges spared after wrong call
An incorrect no-ball ruling by umpire Doug Bracewell spares Adam Voges, further highlighting problem cricket faces with the front-foot rule.
Illingworth called Kiwi pace bowler Doug Bracewell for a no-ball against Australian batsman Adam Voges on Friday. The ball bowled Voges, who was on seven at the time.
Despite TV replays showing it was a legal delivery, Voges stayed at the crease and went on to score a double century which was crucial to Australia's commanding victory to go 1-0 up in the Test series.
Englishman Illingworth has been under fire for his performance and is clearly feeling the heat.
"Unfortunately Richard was distraught afterwards when he realised that it wasn't a no ball," Broad told news.com.au.
"… I think when anyone is proved wrong in any decision that they make it's clearly embarrassing at the time.
"But umpires, particularly on the elite panel have a great ability to be able to overcome that feeling and get on with the game.
"There can be nothing done about it.
"The problem is that when an umpire calls a no-ball, you can't change that decision because under the laws a batsman may change his shot when the no-ball is called. It was called – that's the end of the matter.
"Richard is a Yorkshireman, he shrugs his shoulders and gets on with it. I'm constantly amazed at how the umpires, when they do make their occasional errors, are able to recover from it."
Broad ducked for cover when asked if the Black Caps had made their feelings known during the Test.
"What goes on in a dressing room remains in the dressing room but I'm sure … [they're] human beings," Broad said.
New Zealand were clearly frustrated, with this decision coming on the back of the DRS shocker delivered by Nigel Llong during the pink ball Test in Adelaide before Christmas.
Broad said there was extra scrutiny on umpires now because of media attention and technology. But the human element was ever-present.
"It's been part of cricket ever since cricket started. Errors from players and match officials happen," Broad said.
"I don't know that it's getting any harder [for umpires to call no-balls]. I think what is different is the media are so much closer to the action now out in the middle than they've ever been in the past. Therefore, they're showing up good things as well as bad things in the game."
Broad's thoughts come as the ICC says the topic of video technology to review no-balls will be discussed at its next cricket committee meeting in the wake of the controversy which spared Voges.
"The ICC Cricket Committee will be discussing the use of technology at its next meeting, and the topic of reviewing no-balls will again be part of that discussion," an ICC spokesman said.
"The third umpire can review the fairness of a delivery on the fall of a wicket but not review a no-ball that has been called on the field. The ICC Cricket Committee has discussed this issue on a number of occasions and come to the same conclusion each time – it is not right that a batsman plays a delivery that is illegal, only to be told retrospectively that it was legal and that he is out by a mode of dismissal that would not have been allowed from an illegal delivery."