Sport Today

by **Bharat Ra** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:18:53

I know many on this forum thought it best to ignore Finn's knee-into-stumps problem, but I think the ICC has made the sensible decision. Now, knocking over a bail is a no ball.

To me, that's the simple answer. It could distract the batsman and create an unfair advantage, so make sure no such advantage is gained. It may be a bit extreme to create a law based on just one bowler (who did this quite consistently) -- but as a batsman, to me it is clear that it could be distracting.

So,count me as a full supporter of this move

Bharat

by **Mike Holman** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:37:43

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 03:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao

Quote:

>I know many on this forum thought it best to ignore Finn's knee-into-stumps problem, but I think the ICC has made the sensible decision. Now, knocking over a bail is a no ball.

>To me, that's the simple answer. It could distract the batsman and create an unfair advantage, so make sure no such advantage is gained. It may be a bit extreme to create a law based on just one bowler (who did this quite consistently) -- but as a batsman, to me it is clear that it could be distracting.

>So,count me as a full supporter of this move

I don't agree. Not vehemently or anything like that: I basically think
it's an over-reaction to a non-problem, and I think an awful lot has
been made out of Graeme Smith being a wuss. It's not as silly as
banning underarm bowling was - I think that may well be the most
pointless Law change ever.

So, count me as very slightly disappointed. About as disappointed as I
was when Bairstow was out 5 short of a maiden Test hundred at Lord's
last year. Meh.

Cheers,

Mike
--

by **jzfredrick** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:49:41

Quote:

> So,count me as a full supporter of this move

It's an excellent decision. One that makes real sense.
As I've said, it's an elegant solution.
It fixes everything, and has NO downside to it. Perfect.
I was glad that the MCC have/will change the Law, and doubly glad the ICC are bring forward its introduction.

Mike, do you still think the non-striker is going to knock the bails off as the bowler bowls, in an attempt steal/fake a no-ball? I'm very much looking forward to the first instance of it.

by **Dave** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:05:14

Quote:

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 03:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao

> >I know many on this forum thought it best to ignore Finn's knee-into-stumps problem, but I think the ICC has made the sensible decision. ?Now, knocking over a bail is a no ball.

> >To me, that's the simple answer. ?It could distract the batsman and create an unfair advantage, so make sure no such advantage is gained. ?It may be a bit extreme to create a law based on just one bowler (who did this quite consistently) -- but as a batsman, to me it is clear that it could be distracting.

> >So,count me as a full supporter of this move

> I don't agree. Not vehemently or anything like that: I basically think
> it's an over-reaction to a non-problem, and I think an awful lot has
> been made out of Graeme Smith being a wuss. It's not as silly as
> banning underarm bowling was - I think that may well be the most
> pointless Law change ever.

> So, count me as very slightly disappointed. About as disappointed as I
> was when Bairstow was out 5 short of a maiden Test hundred at Lord's
> last year. Meh.

> Cheers,

> Mike
> --

Well I agree it's an overreaction.

I disagree with you pinning it on Graeme Smith
The South Africans raised an issue after Finn did it. No dead ball
that time.
The English were aware that dead balsa would be called
Every time it happened after that a dead all was called whether it was
a boundary ora wicket.

Could some of your disappointment be driven by a dead ball being
called on a wicket ball

by **Nachiket Gokhal** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:28:34

Quote:

> > So,count me as a full supporter of this move

> It's an excellent decision. One that makes real sense.

> As I've said, it's an elegant solution.

An excellent decision.

Quote:

> Mike, do you still think the non-striker is going to knock the bails off as the bowler bowls, in an attempt steal/fake a no-ball? I'm very much looking forward to the first instance of it.

In case this does happen, what will be the penalty? -Nachiket

by **Mike Holman** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:38:19

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:05:14 -0700 (PDT), Dave

Quote:

>> So, count me as very slightly disappointed. About as disappointed as I
>> was when Bairstow was out 5 short of a maiden Test hundred at Lord's
>> last year. Meh.

>Well I agree it's an overreaction.

>I disagree with you pinning it on Graeme Smith

He's the only batsman who's claimed to have been distracted.

Quote:

>Could some of your disappointment be driven by a dead ball being
>called on a wicket ball

I'd forgotten that that had happened, actually. What did get up my
nose a bit was the sight of batsmen whacking boundaries and then
having the dead ball call when they had obviously not been distracted
in the slightest. It's just another example of how the game tends to
discriminate in favour of namby-pamby batsmen.

Cheers,

Mike
--

by **Mad Hamis** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:36:55

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 03:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao

Quote:

>I know many on this forum thought it best to ignore Finn's knee-into-stumps problem, but I think the ICC has made the sensible decision. Now, knocking over a bail is a no ball.

>To me, that's the simple answer. It could distract the batsman and create an unfair advantage, so make sure no such advantage is gained. It may be a bit extreme to create a law based on just one bowler (who did this quite consistently) -- but as a batsman, to me it is clear that it could be distracting.

>So,count me as a full supporter of this move

I think it's a better option than the dead ball option.
I'm not sure that it required either option to be taken.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

by **jzfredrick** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:39:14

Quote:

> Well I agree it's an overreaction.

I'm not sure if the MCC are well known for their over-reactions.

Fixing a problem (and it WAS a problem) before it gets out of hand isn't an over-reaction.

by **(max.it** » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:18:16

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>> Well I agree it's an overreaction.

>I'm not sure if the MCC are well known for their over-reactions.

>Fixing a problem (and it WAS a problem) before it gets out of hand isn't an over-reaction.

Was never ever a problem until smith was out caught. There is the
simple illusion of a problem created by simple minds with *** all
else important to think about.
For hundreds of years there was no problem until a big ignorant
batsman chanced his luck with an equally ignorant umpire and got away
with it.
It's a ***n disgrace that the law can be corrupted by these ignorant
***wits.

However, if the umpire does not see the bowler break the wicket he
can't honestly call no ball. With watching the feet, the arm, the
angle of delivery. The honest umpire won't ever be able to see a
bowler break the wicket, and if he does, this means he has neglected
to watch for some other things.

max.it

by **jzfredrick** » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:48:21

Quote:

> For hundreds of years there was no problem until...

Yep, and now the problem is fixed.

Quote:

> However, if the umpire does not see the bowler break the wicket he
> can't honestly call no ball. With watching the feet, the arm, the
> angle of delivery. The honest umpire won't ever be able to see a
> bowler break the wicket, and if he does, this means he has neglected
> to watch for some other things.

Umpires will just have to cope. If they can't, they should retire. I'm sure we'll find other umpires who are capable of administering the entire set of cricket Laws.

If the umpire isn't sure WHAT caused the bails to come off, he can call dead-ball.

by **(max.it** » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:59:12

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 15:48:21 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>> For hundreds of years there was no problem until...

>Yep, and now the problem is fixed.

What problem do you mean dummy?

Quote:

>> However, if the umpire does not see the bowler break the wicket he
>> can't honestly call no ball. With watching the feet, the arm, the
>> angle of delivery. The honest umpire won't ever be able to see a
>> bowler break the wicket, and if he does, this means he has neglected
>> to watch for some other things.

>Umpires will just have to cope.
>If they can't, they should retire. I'm sure we'll find other umpires who are capable of administering the entire set of cricket Laws.
>If the umpire isn't sure WHAT caused the bails to come off, he can call dead-ball.

There you go I said ignorant and you couldn't resist providing a
personal example. Thanks for that. Of course stem cell research may at
some time in the future provide umpires with an extra pair of eyes and
this would help them cope. *** you really are a total fool. If you
knew anything at all you would know that umpires are already leaving
the game in droves.
The umpire is not required to call dead ball if the bails come off at
the bowlers end. He simply allows play to continue and the game will
take it's course. Unless Finn knocks off the bails, then he can call
no ball and wonder why the ***!

max.it

by **jzfredrick** » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:48:49

Quote:

> The umpire is not required to call dead ball if the bails come off at
> the bowlers end.

I didn't say he must. I said he 'can'.

by **(max.it** » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:53:33

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 16:48:49 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>> The umpire is not required to call dead ball if the bails come off at
>> the bowlers end.

>I didn't say he must. I said he 'can'.

Why?

max.it

by **jzfredrick** » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:04:18

Quote:

> > The umpire is not required to call dead ball if the bails come off at
> > the bowlers end.

> I didn't say he must. I said he 'can'.

Still, saying this is a waste of time, as I think it's 100% bullshit for you to say that some umpires won't see the bowler do this.

You simply don't like the change and you're making up shit explanations as to why it's bad. Of ALL the things that umpires have to decide on, this is going to be one of the easiest.

by **(max.it** » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:30:24

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:04:18 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>> > The umpire is not required to call dead ball if the bails come off at
>> > the bowlers end.

>> I didn't say he must. I said he 'can'.

>Still, saying this is a waste of time, as I think it's 100% bullshit for you to say that some umpires won't see the bowler do this.

How do you know that? Umpires miss no balls all the time.

Quote:

>You simply don't like the change and you're making up shit explanations as to why it's bad.
>Of ALL the things that umpires have to decide on, this is going to be one of the easiest.

It's certainly going to be a late no ball call. The fact that the ball
remains in play is good, but the transgression attracting a double
disadvantage and penalty against the fielding side is not justified.
So it's not that I don't like the change, it's just that I feel the
change was not needed.

max.it

Sport Today

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball