Sport Today

>> 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.

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

> 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.

> Exactly how is an umpire meant to see the back-foot land, the front
> foot land, watch the stumps to see if the bowler disturbs them during
> the entire delivery process and still get a good enough view of events
> down the other end of the pitch quickly enough to get a good look at
> what's happening down there?

>Yeah, I'd rate "accurately judging a front-foot no-ball" as being HARDER th=
>an "accurately judging a bowler disturbing the bails".

>Besides, making mistakes is a red herring. Umpires always have and always w=
>ill make mistakes - it's a very hard job.

>> >Of ALL the things that umpires have to decide on, this is going to be on=
>e of the easiest.=20
>>=20
>> 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.

>I'm not sure what the double disadvantage is.=20

>We agreed weeks ago that this action CAN be a distraction. I also happen to=
> think it's an unfair one. A "fair" distraction is something out of the pla=
>yers' control, ie a bird flying by. In these cases dead-ball is the correct=
>/just call (generally speaking, I'm sure there are other scenarios worth di=
>scussing, ie hitting a winning 6 off last ball, then having it called dead)=
>.
>An 'unfair' distraction is one caused by a PLAYER, in this case the bowler.=
> The bowler is causing an unfair distraction, so he should be punished.=20

>The lateness of the no-ball call is a (slight) disadvantage to the batsman,=
> as they can't take advantage by going the tonk (as they might with an earl=
>y call or a waste high full toss).

> 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.

> Yeah, apart from the 2 boundaries that Smith hit that were cancelled when
> Dead Ball was called.

> >> 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.

> >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
> --

>> >> 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.

>> >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.
>Graham Smith is a lot of things. In his younger years he was arrogant,
>even a little boorish. Namby pamby isn't a word I would associate with
>him. He has plenty of guts, aggression etc.

> ???
> I'm lost.

> In the "Waaaaa, Finn" Test, 2 main events (relating to this) happened;
> 1. Smith had 2 4s cancelled due to dead ball calls
> 2. Smith was caught by Strauss at 2nd slip, which was cancelled by a dead
> ball call

> One was a loss for the batting team, one was a loss for the bowling team.

> >> 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.

> >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
> --

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

>>> >> 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.

>>> >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.

>>Graham Smith is a lot of things. In his younger years he was arrogant,
>>even a little boorish. Namby pamby isn't a word I would associate with
>>him. He has plenty of guts, aggression etc.

> I wouldn't call him namby-pamby either. But the lawmakers have a
> consistent record of pampering batsmen - "namby-pamby" was applicable
> to batsmen as a class, not any specific individual.

> ???
> I'm lost.

> In the "Waaaaa, Finn" Test, 2 main events (relating to this) happened;
> 1. Smith had 2 4s cancelled due to dead ball calls
> 2. Smith was caught by Strauss at 2nd slip, which was cancelled by a dead
> ball call

> One was a loss for the batting team, one was a loss for the bowling team.

>> >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