Controversy Arises Over Joe Root's Dismissal: Was It a Legal Delivery?

The dismissal of Joe Root during the second Test against India has sparked a debate regarding the legality of Akash Deep's delivery. Commentator Alison Mitchell raised concerns about a potential back-foot no-ball, suggesting that Deep's foot may have landed outside the return crease. This incident has reignited discussions about the enforcement of no-ball rules in cricket, particularly as technology becomes more prevalent in monitoring front-foot violations. As England struggles to chase a massive target, the question remains: should back-foot no-balls be scrutinized with the same rigor as front-foot ones? Dive into the details of this intriguing cricket controversy.
 | 
Controversy Arises Over Joe Root's Dismissal: Was It a Legal Delivery?

The Dismissal That Sparked Debate

Joe Root's early exit on Day 4 of the second Test against India has ignited discussions regarding the legality of Akash Deep's delivery. In the 11th over of England's second innings at Edgbaston, Deep bowled a remarkable delivery that knocked Root's stumps, sending him back for just 6 runs off 16 balls. This left England struggling at 50/3 in their daunting chase of 608 runs, concluding the day at 72/3.


A Closer Look at the Delivery


After Root's dismissal, BBC Test Match Special commentator Alison Mitchell noticed something peculiar during a replay. She pointed out that Akash Deep's back foot appeared to have landed short of the return crease, raising the possibility of a back-foot no-ball.


Understanding Back-Foot No-Balls

In cricket, while most fans are familiar with front-foot no-balls, the back-foot no-ball rule is less commonly understood but equally significant. According to the MCC Laws of Cricket, specifically Law 21.5, the bowler's back foot must land within the return crease during the delivery stride. If it crosses this line, the delivery is deemed illegal.


Unlike front-foot no-balls, which are often monitored with technology, back-foot infractions rely heavily on the umpire's judgment and can easily be missed.


Was It a No-Ball?

Mitchell's analysis suggested that Deep's back foot may have been outside the return crease by approximately two inches. If confirmed, this would mean Root's dismissal should have been overturned. As of now, there has been no official review of the incident, and Root remains out in the records.


This situation has reignited the conversation about the need for technology to monitor back-foot no-balls, similar to front-foot violations. Although England faces a challenging target, this incident raises an important question: Should back-foot no-balls receive the same scrutiny as front-foot ones?