Back foot no ball

[1983-2011]

could someone explain the ruling regarding back foot no-ball?:two_thumbs_up:

[Crookbond]

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,ar.html

5. Fair delivery - the feet For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride (a) the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his stated mode of delivery. (b) the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised (i) on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in (a) above and (ii) behind the popping crease. If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

[GautiMaan]

fnM4VcxZuK4 Tait bowled a lot of these,all though he got away here

[The Outsider]

fnM4VcxZuK4 Tait bowled a lot of these,all though he got away here

Arre that's not a back foot no ball - that's a no ball because of crossing the side crease. Back foot no balls were when a no ball was assessed not from the front foot crossing the line but from the back foot crossing the line adjacent to the stumps.

[gaurav92]

Arre that's not a back foot no ball - that's a no ball because of crossing the side crease. Back foot no balls were when a no ball was assessed not from the front foot crossing the line but from the back foot crossing the line adjacent to the stumps.

:dito:

[King Khan]

This is quite same as back foot fault while serving in tennis. Some form of cheating thats all.