MCC to vote on rule changes

[Gunner_Mania]

Well' date=' Gunner and others before the disappointment at India's performance takes centre stage and drowns this minor point down - what are your thoughts? After reviewing what the rulebook has to say on this subject.[/quote'] I think the law is wrong. I still stick to what I said, It should be called a wide and not a noball. As it is the game is batsmen friendly. If a batsman knows that it will be called a noball and not wide they are more often then not going to attempt playing a shot knowing it will be called a noball and bowlers are less likely to attemp to bowl a bouncer. On a diferrent note, what does the highlighted line below mean? Does it mean that it is more likely to be called an illegal delivery , if the skill of the striker is poor. for eg, more likely to be a called a wide for a tail ender than a opener?

The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration.

[thevortex]

That is exactly what it means, Gunner. And I am afraid I will have to disagree. A wide that is out of a batsman's reach on the leg or off side is entirely different from a delivery which just about crests the top of a batsman's helmet. The same rule cannot be applied literally. A short delivery which is just above a batsman's helmet has many times a greater chance of being hit with the bat than a wide of similar margin either side of the wicket. Short of using a complex measuring scheme where you have different rules based on balls that bounce at different heights and/or widths, I would say give these particular short balls as no balls. That is when justice will be done - in letter but more importantly in spirit. Which is what cricket should be about.

[thevortex]

Gunner - did you see what happened just now in the T20 match between New Zealand and Pakistan?!!! A ball above the head of Vettori by Aamer was given as a noball. Yes, you read that right! I dont know what gives, but I believe that is the right decision.

[Tapioca]

I was agreeing with you. But I also think that it is the way the rule is already applied now. To quote the law that you quoted above :

The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker,

The repetition is a key-word here. In ODIs, more than one bouncer counts as repetition, in Tests it is based on the umpire's discretion. So from what I understand (and I could be terribly wrong), the first over the head bouncer is a wide (just a notification by the ump if below the shoulder), the second is a no-ball. From the CI comms in the Vettori v Aamer case :

18.1 Mohammad Aamer to Vettori, 2 runs, 123.3 kph, lovely slower bouncer, gets the top edge from Vettori but it lands around the 30-yard circle around the fine-leg area, and Ajmal is not really urgent in running towards it, letting them come back for two 18.2 Mohammad Aamer to Vettori, 1 no ball, 139.8 kph, lovely bouncer, quicker one this time, beats him on the pull, but it is the second bouncer of the over and hence a no-ball. Remember, no free-hit for this one

[Tapioca]

On a diferrent note, what does the highlighted line below mean? Does it mean that it is more likely to be called an illegal delivery , if the skill of the striker is poor. for eg, more likely to be a called a wide for a tail ender than a opener? Quote The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration.

Good point. The umpire should no-ball the bowlers when they ball bouncers against Vijay, Raina and YKP.

[thevortex]

Ah, I see now, Tapioca. So that was why it was no-balled. About the rule though here is my issue. The noball will be given when there is a second bouncer above shoulder height. But the ball will still be declared as wide if it goes above the batsman's head (consider that as the first bouncer for the over). It is that which I am disagreeing with.

[thevortex]

Did people take a look at Gambhir's dismissal. I thought that was close to being just above head high. And I think that would have been a very hard ball to avoid for the batsman. This is precisely why I believe the balls just above the head should NOT be treated on par with the wides on either side of the wicket. The degree of difficulty a batsman faces in reaching these deliveries is not the same. Hence the rule or penalty cannot be the same. Now, if balls just clearing the batsman's head are called no-balls then in that case, Gambhir would probably have been declared not out. This is not to say that batsmen must be mollycoddled even more. Just that there are other - perhaps better - ways of handing advantages to the bowlers than this.

[Tapioca]

You would be right if bouncers are banned, as it was in the 1990s. But when one is legal, wide first - no ball thereafter is correct as per the law. So would you suggest banning bouncers altogether to bring the uniformity ?

[Mr. Wicket]

Good point. The umpire should no-ball the bowlers when they ball bouncers against Vijay' date=' Raina and YKP.[/quote'] Brilliant. You don't post enough, Tapioca.

[thevortex]

You would be right if bouncers are banned' date=' as it was in the 1990s. But when one is legal, wide first - no ball thereafter is correct as per the law. So would you suggest banning bouncers altogether to bring the uniformity ?[/quote'] How is it correct as per the law? Did you read the section I had produced here? It clearly talks about balls above the head being noballs. What do you make of that?

[The Outsider]

How is it correct as per the law? Did you read the section I had produced here? It clearly talks about balls above the head being noballs. What do you make of that?

Here is how it works : 1. Any ball over the head is a wide because it is deemed to be outside the batsman's reach to play a normal cricket stroke. 2. The first ball between shoulder and head height is legitimate because the batsman can play a regular cricket stroke to it. However, it is noted as one for the over. 3. The second ball above shoulder height in an over, whether above or below the head, is a no ball, because the bowler has transgressed beyond the one allowed. It is given a no ball and not a wide even if it's above head height in convention that if a delivery is both a no ball and a wide, a no ball is given. A ball on which a batsman makes contact certainly cannot be penalized for being out of reach of the batsman. You will run into absurdities like a ball wide off the white line will be given a wide even if a batsman touches it or something down the leg side would be given wide even if the batsman touches it.

[Tapioca]

How is it correct as per the law? Did you read the section I had produced here? It clearly talks about balls above the head being noballs. What do you make of that?

Repetition, vortex. Becomes only a no-ball only when repeated. One bouncer per over is neither illegal, nor falls under repetition. So if it too far away, it becomes a plain wide, that's all.

The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction

This law is common for all cricket matches. There should be a ODI only section somewhere in the laws that handles the one bouncer business more specifically.

[thevortex]

Guys, I do get what you are saying. That is how the law works right now. Which is precisely why I am suggesting that the ball just above the head is not the same as a wide down leg or off side. Any thoughts?