Sport Today

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:23:24

This has become a ridiculous pantomime now. One bowler in world cricket
regularly breaks the stumps in the delivery stride and one team complained
about it, but this is enough for a protocol to be agreed at the
pre-tournament meeting that every such instance should be called dead ball.

My guess is that most batsmen don't even know the stumps have been broken
and statistically it seems more likely the batting side will end up
disadvantaged than the bowling side, who after all are the ones at fault
here.

That said, if the protocol was put in place before the tournament started
then it's up to the teams to get on with it, although Broad saying it isn't
a big deal and that Finn is working hard to eradicate the problem has a very
hollow ring.

Perhaps more of an issue was Simon Taufel's inability to apply his wide
calls accurately or fairly. It's very difficult to score off a ball that
bounces over the batsman's head or one that passes well down the leg side
and if these are not called wides the batting side is disadvantaged
significantly.

Andrew

by **arahi** » Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:41:14

Quote:

> This has become a ridiculous pantomime now. ?One bowler in world cricket
> regularly breaks the stumps in the delivery stride and one team complained
> about it, but this is enough for a protocol to be agreed at the
> pre-tournament meeting that every such instance should be called dead ball.

> My guess is that most batsmen don't even know the stumps have been broken
> and statistically it seems more likely the batting side will end up
> disadvantaged than the bowling side, who after all are the ones at fault
> here.

> That said, if the protocol was put in place before the tournament started
> then it's up to the teams to get on with it, although Broad saying it isn't
> a big deal and that Finn is working hard to eradicate the problem has a very
> hollow ring.

> Perhaps more of an issue was Simon Taufel's inability to apply his wide
> calls accurately or fairly. ?It's very difficult to score off a ball that
> bounces over the batsman's head or one that passes well down the leg side
> and if these are not called wides the batting side is disadvantaged
> significantly.

It simply should be a no ball. There is a limit to how far you can
move away from the wickets before it is a no ball and this is just
another boundary.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Andrew

by **jzfredrick** » Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:10:44

Quote:

> It simply should be a no ball.

Don't say this. The old fuddie duddies here will laugh at you.

by **jzfredrick** » Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:16:23

Quote:

> Perhaps more of an issue was Simon Taufel's inability to apply his wide
> calls accurately or fairly. It's very difficult to score off a ball that
> bounces over the batsman's head or one that passes well down the leg side
> and if these are not called wides the batting side is disadvantaged
> significantly.

I saw one call that was most probably a mistake. I say 'most probably' because it looked close to touching Franklin's boot, but I don't think it did. Franklin ofc blew up a little. I'm not sure if missing one wide is a significant disadvantage. Were there more?

by **Bharat Ra** » Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:06:37

Quote:

> This has become a ridiculous pantomime now. One bowler in world cricket
> regularly breaks the stumps in the delivery stride and one team complained
> about it, but this is enough for a protocol to be agreed at the
> pre-tournament meeting that every such instance should be called dead ball.

I think it should just be a no-ball. He's coming closer that he should.

If that offends the purists, then its a live ball if the batsman scores runs. Else it is a dead ball.

Bharat

by **Bharat Ra** » Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:12:27

Quote:

> My guess is that most batsmen don't even know the stumps have been broken

There I would disagree. If SRT can be distracted by some obscure happening well to the right of the sightscreen, then this could certainly distract him.

I've never had someone knock stumps over with his leg while bowling, but a certain offie I played against would occasionally manage to hit the stump with his non-bowling hand on his follow-through. Fortunately, he was bad enough that the only indecision in the batsman's mind was whether to hit him for 4 or 6, but it certainly was noticeable when he hit the stumps.

Bharat

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:42:53

Quote:

>> This has become a ridiculous pantomime now. One bowler in world cricket
>> regularly breaks the stumps in the delivery stride and one team
>> complained
>> about it, but this is enough for a protocol to be agreed at the
>> pre-tournament meeting that every such instance should be called dead
>> ball.

> I think it should just be a no-ball. He's coming closer that he should.

> If that offends the purists, then its a live ball if the batsman scores
> runs. Else it is a dead ball.

Ross Taylor suggested something similar. Play 'advantage' to the batsman
i.e. only call dead ball if he is dismissed. This is however fraught with
difficulty - a player scoring a single might claim he would otherwise have
hit a four, hence why no-ball makes sense. One thing we can be reasonably
certain about is that if this occurred at a vital match stage a big stink is
guaranteed, bearing in mind this ruling was not agreed by the competing
teams but simply imposed unilaterally by the ICC.

Andrew

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:54:50

Quote:

>> My guess is that most batsmen don't even know the stumps have been broken

> There I would disagree. If SRT can be distracted by some obscure
> happening well to the right of the sightscreen, then this could certainly
> distract him.

> I've never had someone knock stumps over with his leg while bowling, but a
> certain offie I played against would occasionally manage to hit the stump
> with his non-bowling hand on his follow-through. Fortunately, he was bad
> enough that the only indecision in the batsman's mind was whether to hit
> him for 4 or 6, but it certainly was noticeable when he hit the stumps.

I think the distraction is in the eye of the beholder and will vary from
player to player. It was pretty clear to me from the reaction of a couple
of the NZ batsmen against England they had no idea the bail had fallen.

And it's also partly about convention, which dictates that international
batsmen are allowed to make a fuss about what's happening off-field near the
sightscreen. When the bowler reaches his delivery stride the batsman has
trained himself to concentrate on the ball coming out of the hand: a bail
falling to the ground is arguably no more distracting than the bowler's
moving body parts.

On reflection I'm inclined to the view that Graeme Smith's distraction call
was either simply gamemanship, or specific to him. My preference is for the
bails falling to be ignored and the game to continue, as it did for as long
as anyone can remember.

Andrew

by **jzfredrick** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:39:20

Quote:

> On reflection I'm inclined to the view that Graeme Smith's distraction call
> was either simply gamemanship, or specific to him. My preference is for the
> bails falling to be ignored and the game to continue, as it did for as long
> as anyone can remember.

I think that's extremely unfair to a batsman who IS distracted.

Try to wipe it from the game - make it an auto no-ball.

by **Geoff Muldoo** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:01:02

Quote:

> > On reflection I'm inclined to the view that Graeme Smith's distraction call
> > was either simply gamemanship, or specific to him. My preference is for the
> > bails falling to be ignored and the game to continue, as it did for as long
> > as anyone can remember.

> I think that's extremely unfair to a batsman who IS distracted.

> Try to wipe it from the game - make it an auto no-ball.

Vote +1.

Popping crease, return crease, stumps - all things a bowler should be
obliged to avoid.

GM

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:15:56

Quote:

>> > On reflection I'm inclined to the view that Graeme Smith's distraction
>> > call
>> > was either simply gamemanship, or specific to him. My preference is
>> > for the
>> > bails falling to be ignored and the game to continue, as it did for as
>> > long
>> > as anyone can remember.

>> I think that's extremely unfair to a batsman who IS distracted.

>> Try to wipe it from the game - make it an auto no-ball.

> Vote +1.

> Popping crease, return crease, stumps - all things a bowler should be
> obliged to avoid.

You've obviously never umpired in Wellington: the umpire's main job is to
replace bails that fell off in the wind. This may sound strawman but it's
not always as easy to tell what was responsible for the bails coming off as
may first appear.

Andrew

by **jzfredrick** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:58:12

Quote:

> You've obviously never umpired in Wellington: the umpire's main job is to
> replace bails that fell off in the wind. This may sound strawman but it's
> not always as easy to tell what was responsible for the bails coming off as
> may first appear.

Easy.
If the ump is certain the bowler caused it, no ball.
If the ump is certain the wind caused it, dead ball (regardless of outcome).
According to Mike there's no such thing as uncertainty. Umpiring is purely binary.

If the bails are falling off so often then call it a distraction and remove them. If I was the ump I'd also do this for the bowler's safety (they might tread on the fallen bail), especially as the frequency of this happening as the bowler gets to the stumps is, apparently, very high.

by **jzfredrick** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:53:20

Quote:

> If the ump is certain the wind caused it, dead ball (regardless of outcome).

The reason I like the "regardless of outcome" part is it reduces intent/mind-reading by the umpire. If the playing condition or Law is black and white players are more ready to "cop it on the chin" if they suffer somewhat. When they suffer from a judgement call it feels worse, and can lead to tension.

The intent/mind-reading part I'm referring to is requiring the batsman to indicate in some way, and (importantly) in time, to the umpire that he was distracted by the event.

I still insist that the event, whatever it may be, *can* happen late enough that
the batsman simply doesn't have time to indicate clearly to the ump that he was distracted. The bowler falling over is an example of this. I think that's an unfair distraction.

The other example for "regardless of outcome" is this;
case 1: distraction event occurs, batsman bowled == dead or no ball (depending on cause)
case 2: distraction event occurs, batsman hits it for 6 == 6 given (IF we go with "give runs if they are scored")
case 3: distraction event occurs, batsman hits it for 6 but is majestically caught on the boundary == ???

How could it be fair to give #2 a 6, but then say "batsman got out in #3, so call it dead ball"?

I see SO many benefits in simply calling a distraction caused by the bowler an automatic no-ball, with almost zero genuine cost.

by **Geoff Muldoo** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 17:03:42

Quote:

> >> Try to wipe it from the game - make it an auto no-ball.

> > Vote +1.

> > Popping crease, return crease, stumps - all things a bowler should be
> > obliged to avoid.

> You've obviously never umpired in Wellington: the umpire's main job is to
> replace bails that fell off in the wind. This may sound strawman but it's
> not always as easy to tell what was responsible for the bails coming off as
> may first appear.

Umpires (no criticism intended) sometimes fail to pick up on a no-ball
by the bowler, particularly WRT the return crease. If they occasionally
miss the bowler causing the bails to dislodge, then so be it. On those
occasions it is up to them whether to call it a dead ball or not,
depending on the circumstance and potential distraction to the batsman.

But when it is *obvious* that the bowler dislogded them, then NO BALL!

GM

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:16:31

Quote:

>> >> Try to wipe it from the game - make it an auto no-ball.

>> > Vote +1.

>> > Popping crease, return crease, stumps - all things a bowler should be
>> > obliged to avoid.

>> You've obviously never umpired in Wellington: the umpire's main job is to
>> replace bails that fell off in the wind. This may sound strawman but
>> it's
>> not always as easy to tell what was responsible for the bails coming off
>> as
>> may first appear.

> Umpires (no criticism intended) sometimes fail to pick up on a no-ball
> by the bowler, particularly WRT the return crease. If they occasionally
> miss the bowler causing the bails to dislodge, then so be it. On those
> occasions it is up to them whether to call it a dead ball or not,
> depending on the circumstance and potential distraction to the batsman.

> But when it is *obvious* that the bowler dislogded them, then NO BALL!

Actually on reflection the chances of the wind blowing the bails off at
exactly the wrong time are much slighter than I claimed earlier. Thanks for
your sarcastic response jz - it was justified.

I'm confortable with a Law change to no-ball. I guess what I'm really
saying is that until that Law change takes place the batsman is not
distracted by the bail falling unless he says he's distracted by it. I'm
not a fan of the blanket dead ball, in case anyone hadn't noticed.

Andrew

Sport Today

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls

Finn and dead balls