Sport Today

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:05:43

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

> You're right: it probably wasn't entirely Smith's fault. Perhaps in the
> name of fairness we should attribute only 95% of the blame to him and the
> other 5% to his batting partner at the time Petersen.

> I'm not aware of anybody else ever complaining about this in any grade of
> cricket. The Laws have been complicated unnecessarily.

and disadvantaged the bowling side even more than was previously the case

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:05:59

Quote:

>>> showing that it is only a problem to the bowling side, the bails being
>>> dislodged by the bowler that is

>> ???
>> 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.

> He means there was no need for a change to the Laws and international
> playing conditions, because under the previous arrangement the fielding
> team was the only one ever disadvantaged.

he knows that

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:38:30

Quote:

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

> IN GENERAL the only team disadvantaged by the bowler knocking the bails off
> is the bowling team. The changes are bullshit it shouldn't be a dead ball or
> no-ball

What evidence led you to this conclusion?

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:47:33

Quote:

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

> He means there was no need for a change to the Laws and international
> playing conditions, because under the previous arrangement the fielding team
> was the only one ever disadvantaged.

Sorry mate, I'm still lost.

I thought the current Laws (ie without this new auto no-ball) allow for dead-ball if the batsman indicates (somehow) that he's been disturbed... and... the current Test Playing Conditions say that it's an auto-dead ball (perhaps only after the batting team has said it's a distraction? not sure about this part).

An auto-dead-ball, if that was indeed "the previous arrangement", can disadvantage *either* team, rather than just the bowling team (as you and dechucka are stipulating).

Quote:

> Incidentally, I'd be curious to know how a batsman can hit two boundaries
> from the pavilion.

The pavilion is closer to the boundary, silly.

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:49:52

Quote:

> > He means there was no need for a change to the Laws and international
> > playing conditions, because under the previous arrangement the fielding
> > team was the only one ever disadvantaged.

> he knows that

I know that's what you're saying, but it makes zero sense to me. I've cited 2 examples of real life events where the batting team was disadvantaged by the old (still current) regulations.

Btw, just adding some dates in for clarity;

The new ICC playing condition will come into effect on April 30 2013.

The first international match to be played under the new regulation will be the first ODI between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in Bulawayo on Friday May 3.

The MCC are introducing a new No ball Law from 1 October 2013.

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:54:20

Quote:

>current Test Playing Conditions say that it's an auto-dead ball (perhaps only >after the batting team has said it's a distraction? not sure about this part).

A CI article said this about the "old/current" PCs;

"Previously, when the non-striker's end stumps were broken in the delivery stride a dead-ball was called, following an initial warning, regardless of the outcome of the delivery. The new regulation provides clarity on what had been an issue of controversy."

So the first one was free, all others were auto-dead-balls.

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:55:51

Quote:

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

>> IN GENERAL the only team disadvantaged by the bowler knocking the bails
>> off
>> is the bowling team. The changes are bullshit it shouldn't be a dead ball
>> or
>> no-ball

> What evidence led you to this conclusion?

The fact that Smith et al can hit boundaries when the bails are knocked off
and the bowling side must lift a stump to get a run-out with the bails
removed i.e. a hit from a throw is not enough

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:56:52

Quote:

> > He means there was no need for a change to the Laws and international
> > playing conditions, because under the previous arrangement the fielding
> > team was the only one ever disadvantaged.

> he knows that

I know that's what you're saying, but it makes zero sense to me. I've cited
2 examples of real life events where the batting team was disadvantaged by
the old (still current) regulations.
============================================

showing they weren't disavantaged before this was bought in

Btw, just adding some dates in for clarity;

The new ICC playing condition will come into effect on April 30 2013.

The first international match to be played under the new regulation will be
the first ODI between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in Bulawayo on Friday May 3.

The MCC are introducing a new No ball Law from 1 October 2013.

======================

so

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:58:11

Quote:

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

> He means there was no need for a change to the Laws and international
> playing conditions, because under the previous arrangement the fielding
> team
> was the only one ever disadvantaged.

Sorry mate, I'm still lost.

I thought the current Laws (ie without this new auto no-ball) allow for
dead-ball if the batsman indicates (somehow) that he's been disturbed...
and... the current Test Playing Conditions say that it's an auto-dead ball
(perhaps only after the batting team has said it's a distraction? not sure
about this part).

An auto-dead-ball, if that was indeed "the previous arrangement", can
disadvantage *either* team, rather than just the bowling team (as you and
dechucka are stipulating).

=====================================

originally it wasn't a dead ball if the bowler knocked the bails off. This
is how it should of remained

Quote:

> Incidentally, I'd be curious to know how a batsman can hit two boundaries
> from the pavilion.

The pavilion is closer to the boundary, silly.

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:05:36

Quote:

> The Laws have been complicated unnecessarily.

Complicated? I suggest you read the current Laws and PCs.
This change makes them extremely simple, compared to the old version.

I've little issue with people saying the new Law sucks, or was unnecessary, or is unfair to a particular team, or whatever... but to say "The Laws have been complicated" is *completely* wrong.

NB: There was no need to include "complicated *unnecessarily*" just then, as the "unnecessarily" part is totally irrelevant. The Laws have been SIMPLIFIED, regardless of the need of this change.

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:07:22

Quote:

> > What evidence led you to this conclusion?
> The fact that Smith et al can hit boundaries when the bails are knocked off
> and the bowling side must lift a stump to get a run-out with the bails
> removed i.e. a hit from a throw is not enough

Smith CAN'T hit a boundary... the ball is called dead. He can't be run out.

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:08:26

Quote:

> I know that's what you're saying, but it makes zero sense to me. I've cited
> 2 examples of real life events where the batting team was disadvantaged by
> the old (still current) regulations.
> ============================================
> showing they weren't disavantaged before this was bought in

Are you drunk?

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:13:55

Quote:

>> > What evidence led you to this conclusion?
>> The fact that Smith et al can hit boundaries when the bails are knocked
>> off
>> and the bowling side must lift a stump to get a run-out with the bails
>> removed i.e. a hit from a throw is not enough

> Smith CAN'T hit a boundary... the ball is called dead. He can't be run
> out.

seems to have hit the ball to the boundary

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:15:07

Quote:

>> The Laws have been complicated unnecessarily.

> Complicated? I suggest you read the current Laws and PCs.
> This change makes them extremely simple, compared to the old version.

> I've little issue with people saying the new Law sucks, or was
> unnecessary, or is unfair to a particular team, or whatever... but to say
> "The Laws have been complicated" is *completely* wrong.

> NB: There was no need to include "complicated *unnecessarily*" just then,
> as the "unnecessarily" part is totally irrelevant. The Laws have been
> SIMPLIFIED, regardless of the need of this change.

Go back to the original situation where if the bails were knocked off by the
bowler it was play on.

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:16:08

Quote:

> originally it wasn't a dead ball if the bowler knocked the bails off. This
> is how it should of remained

The Finn Dead-Ball incident at Headingley was played under the 'old' Laws and PCs. The ones you love so much.

The 'old' Laws allowed this to be called Dead Ball if the batsman clearly indicated to the umpire that it was a distraction.

As I understand it Smith spoke to the umps prior to the match, and said that their entire team found it distracting when the bowler did this. The umpires considered this a clear enough indication, and decided to call ALL of these incidents Dead Balls.

Yep, those old Laws were awesome! And uncomplicated!

(nb: can't be arsed looking up articles from the time, my version of history re the umpire talks might have missed a few things or got some things wrong - above is how I remember 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