Should the TV umpire adjudicate no-balls?

In the final over of the first day in Wellington, Doug Bracewell bowled Adam Voges off an illegal delivery. It should not have been illegal, but umpire Richard Illingworth made it so by thrusting out his arm and calling "no-ball". Television viewers around the world saw immediately afterwards that Illingworth's call was wrong: replays showed that Bracewell's foot landed with a good portion of his heel behind the crease.

One of the quirks of international cricket is that a no-ball can be retrospectively called but cannot be retrospectively undone. It really cannot be any other way, for who is to say that a batsman does not change his reaction once the no-ball is called? Here, that appeared not to be the case, for Voges left the ball alone - had he had time to adjust his shot he would surely have had a swing at the ball, knowing he could not be dismissed.

But what if the same thing had occurred with a spinner bowling? Surely then the batsman would have had ample time to adjust his shot, and undoing a wrong no-ball call would thus be unfair. Can you have different rules for different bowlers? And what about a slow medium-pacer? Who is to decide which bowlers are too quick, and which bowlers are slow enough for a batsman to react? One rule must apply, and the current rule is fair.

That is why international umpires are told to err on the side of caution with no-ball calls, that if they have any doubts at all to stay unmoved. They can always ask for video confirmation should a wicket fall. In the case of Bracewell and Voges, Illingworth was wrong. But it was not wrong that once he had made his call, it had to stand.

And yet, it is not that simple. If on-field umpires are told - rightly - to err on the side of caution, then what of all the runs that are not added to a team's total by way of missed no-balls? Matches are won and lost based on a team's tally of runs. The arguments on no-ball calls go in never-ending circles, like the traffic around the Basin Reserve roundabout.

It is also worth noting that, as outlined by ESPNcricinfo last year, on-field umpires stand in far from the ideal position to make a live no-ball call. Certain bowlers are especially difficult because their actions mean the front foot is obscured from the umpire's viewpoint. It is much easier to see from the side-on television cameras, as viewers again discovered with the Bracewell-Voges incident.

Has the time come, then, to take no-balls entirely out of the hands of the on-field officials in matches with a TV umpire? Can the third umpire monitor the side-on cameras live, and relay to the on-field umpires whether a no-ball has been delivered?

Obviously this would result in a delay, and a no-ball would not be called until after the ball had been played by the batsman. But isn't that preferable to the current situation of missed no-balls and missed runs, and occasional incorrect no-ball calls as was seen at the Basin Reserve on Friday?

On-field umpires have managed no-balls throughout cricket's long history, but then so had they managed all decisions until replays and technology advanced to such a point that viewers at home had more information than the umpires on field. So why carry no-balls only halfway into the modern era?

For their part, the New Zealand players appeared to take the incident in their stride. It should be noted that replays of the no-ball were not shown on the big screen at the Basin Reserve, so the players did not see that they had been short-changed until they left the field.

"Once his arm goes out, there's not much you can do about it," offspinner Mark Craig said. "There's obviously going to be a bit of disappointment but you can't do much about it now."

Not for that decision, certainly. But perhaps the ICC needs to look in greater depth at how no-balls are called. Introducing HawkEye technology would be difficult; the crease line often gets scuffed and blurry, and the non-striker's movement would cause interference. But involving the third umpire should not be as hard.

It would not be flawless, either. The non-striker and fielder at short mid-on or short mid-off could obscure the TV umpire's view, but with cameras on both sides that risk is reduced. And, of course, the batsman might be denied the chance to have a swing having heard an on-field no-ball call, but it is a batsman's game and that would only be a minor inconvenience.

That is, of course, if batsmen can even react quickly enough to adjust their shot in the first place, which against fast bowlers is debatable. And if they can't, why even bother having the on-field umpire make the call at all?