>>> 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.
>> 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.