Sport Today

> 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

>> 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

>> > 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?