Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Post by Dechuck » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:40:51


It must be very disturbing for the bowler and the fielding team to have the
batsman move around the crease as the bowler is running in. In light of the
inane "bail knocked off changes" the batsman should not be allowed to move
his/her feet till the ball is delivered
 
 
 

Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Post by jzfredrick » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:42:03

Sure, so long as the bowler can't either.

 
 
 

Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Post by Dechuck » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:44:44


Quote:
> Sure, so long as the bowler can't either.

idiot

 
 
 

Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Post by Geoff Muldoo » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:37:01


Quote:

> It must be very disturbing for the bowler and the fielding team to have the
> batsman move around the crease as the bowler is running in. In light of the
> inane "bail knocked off changes" the batsman should not be allowed to move
> his/her feet till the ball is delivered

Sometimes you really are just a ***ing goose.

The bowler's got all the space between the stumps and the return crease
to move about in too.  If he steps outside the return crease in his
delivery stride, it's (as it has always been) a no-ball.  If he collides
with the stumps it's (now) a no-ball.  Good.

Go to the hardware store. Buy some timber. Build a bridge. Get over it.

GM

 
 
 

Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Post by Dechuck » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:47:43


Quote:


>> It must be very disturbing for the bowler and the fielding team to have
>> the
>> batsman move around the crease as the bowler is running in. In light of
>> the
>> inane "bail knocked off changes" the batsman should not be allowed to
>> move
>> his/her feet till the ball is delivered

> Sometimes you really are just a ***ing goose.

> The bowler's got all the space between the stumps and the return crease
> to move about in too.  If he steps outside the return crease in his
> delivery stride, it's (as it has always been) a no-ball.  If he collides
> with the stumps it's (now) a no-ball.  Good.

On that point I disagree because it gives an advantage to the batsman
without good reason

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Go to the hardware store. Buy some timber. Build a bridge. Get over it.

> GM

 
 
 

Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Post by Geoff Muldoo » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:41:13


Quote:
> > The bowler's got all the space between the stumps and the return
crease
> > to move about in too.  If he steps outside the return crease in his
> > delivery stride, it's (as it has always been) a no-ball.  If he collides
> > with the stumps it's (now) a no-ball.  Good.
> On that point I disagree because it gives an advantage to the batsman
> without good reason

So the bowler should also be allowed to deliver from wider than the
return crease as well?  What next under your "logic"?  Remove the front-
foot no-ball law too?

GM

 
 
 

Distraction, Batsmen should not be able to move their feet till the ball is delivered

Post by Dechuck » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:16:21


Quote:

>> > The bowler's got all the space between the stumps and the return
> crease
>> > to move about in too.  If he steps outside the return crease in his
>> > delivery stride, it's (as it has always been) a no-ball.  If he
>> > collides
>> > with the stumps it's (now) a no-ball.  Good.

>> On that point I disagree because it gives an advantage to the batsman
>> without good reason

> So the bowler should also be allowed to deliver from wider than the
> return crease as well?  What next under your "logic"?  Remove the front-
> foot no-ball law too?

under the LAWs he can't