No ball for knocking bails off - right or wrong?

[Owzat]

The MCC has now changed the laws so that, if a bowler knocks a bail off in their delivery stride, it is officially now called a "no ball".

Previously the laws didn't really cover this "problem", where Finn had a habit of knocking bails off it was called "dead ball" which is covered only in as much as if the umpire decides the batsman was distracted (a judgement call)

Personally I fail to see why the bowler knocking the bail off should incur any penalty, the bowler flailing arms all over the place or having a towel tucked in his trousers could "distract" the batsman. And of course, if I'm not mistaken, it means to force a run out at that end the fielder would have to pull a stump out of the ground so the advantage is with the batsmen anyway.

It's funny how when bowlers chuck the laws are changed so they are considered not to be chucking, when a bowler does something as innocuous as knock a bail off in delivery then they laws are changed to penalise the bowler.

I'm not suggesting England are somehow "victims", just the ridiculous over-reaction to a relatively trivial nothing. It's not an epidemic, it isn't like Finn takes 25% or more of his wickets, or is even doing it deliberately.

BBC Sport - MCC changes no-ball law over breaking stumps while bowling



And considering other wider spread problems such as backing up of batsmen etc, again not massive in terms of impact but certainly more common and gaining an advantage, I find this even more of a strange move

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

you are suggesting they're victims a bit.

I think it makes sense, if the umpire is so convinced the batsman has a case saying he's distracted so that he calls a dead ball at every occurrence then it makes sense to actually introduce a rule. we already have a rule about how far forward a bowler is supposed to put his foot, he also has to declare which side he'll be coming from, so I don't think a law about the channel he has to bowl in is silly.

as for the backing up thing I really just wish bowlers would go on a mankading spree. I would have absolutely no qualms about mankading a batsman that was half way down the crease even if there was 2 runs in it, 9 wickets down at a world cup final. It's a ridiculous pleasantry that they don't, come out your crease early? you are there for the taking imo.

 

[MUFC1987]

Yeah, but would it be mankading, or a no-ball for breaking the stumps?

I think it's perhaps harsh, but Finn should have solved this problem. He just needs to learn to keep hold of the ball when he hits the stumps, much like Kieron Pollard does when he hears the Umpire calling no-ball. That, or you know, go two inches wider.

 

[sifter132]

I don't think this is particularly 'fair' to bowlers, no. But I still think it's a good idea to stamp this stuff out before it truly becomes an issue. You don't want an incident to occur mid-match and have to deal with hotheaded cricketers and legislating on the run. Put it in the law book and the problem is solved.

 

[Owzat]

you are suggesting they're victims a bit.

Not really, just seems to make little sense to "fix" what wasn't broken" - except the bails.

I think it makes sense, if the umpire is so convinced the batsman has a case saying he's distracted so that he calls a dead ball at every occurrence then it makes sense to actually introduce a rule. we already have a rule about how far forward a bowler is supposed to put his foot, he also has to declare which side he'll be coming from, so I don't think a law about the channel he has to bowl in is silly.

Well if he's just been bowled he's bound to say he's "distracted", duh! Get out of bail, I mean jail, free card.

You're trying to draw relevance of laws that have some sense to them, this new rule is brought about where one isn't needed.

as for the backing up thing I really just wish bowlers would go on a mankading spree. I would have absolutely no qualms about mankading a batsman that was half way down the crease even if there was 2 runs in it, 9 wickets down at a world cup final. It's a ridiculous pleasantry that they don't, come out your crease early? you are there for the taking imo.

If you're giving no balls for knocking off the bails then maybe the umpires should signal "one short" for every time the non-striker backs up before the ball is hit. You could argue the bowler is "distracted" by the non-striker, more so than the batsman if a bail were knocked off which would not be where his focus would/should be anyway.

Be better if the bowlers could cut it out, but the law as it stood of "dead ball" if the umpire was sure the batsman was distracted would have been better.

If the batsman is distracted he is fully entitled to back away, if he did that then fair enough, but making it a no ball makes no sense.

----------

I don't think this is particularly 'fair' to bowlers, no. But I still think it's a good idea to stamp this stuff out before it truly becomes an issue. You don't want an incident to occur mid-match and have to deal with hotheaded cricketers and legislating on the run. Put it in the law book and the problem is solved.

I don't disagree with having something in the laws, but as I said in my previous post/reply to stinky, it doesn't need to be a no ball. Dead ball if the batsman is distracted is fair enough, the batsman just needs to back away or drop his bat or something to indicate that he is wanting that.

Strikes me someone saw a minor problem and threw a nuclear bomb at it, let's obliterate this quasi offence to make sure the prissy batsmen don't get bowled by a ball they should have hit anyway

 

[sifter132]

But how does one determine if the batsmen was truly distracted? And if it's judged on a case by case basis, then potentially there would be acting jobs that creep into the game where batsmen widen their eyes, blink violently and claim that Finn totally threw them off, just because they didn't score off that ball. I don't want that kind of stuff in cricket.

Also, a batsman can't just back away if he feels distracted, the ball will be halfway down the wicket by the time he realises the bowler has collected the stumps in his action and it may not be safe to back away at that time.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Well if he's just been bowled he's bound to say he's "distracted", duh! Get out of bail, I mean jail, free card.

You're trying to draw relevance of laws that have some sense to them, this new rule is brought about where one isn't needed.



If you're giving no balls for knocking off the bails then maybe the umpires should signal "one short" for every time the non-striker backs up before the ball is hit. You could argue the bowler is "distracted" by the non-striker, more so than the batsman if a bail were knocked off which would not be where his focus would/should be anyway.

sifter makes a good point about trying to evaluate whether or not he's distracted, it's impossible, but if the umpire is always ruling that it is distracting surely that means it is reasonable to agree that a bowler kicking the stumps is always distracting. if the batsman is always distracted the ball should be considered too difficult to play and the sense in implementing a law is to prevent the bowler distracting the batsman and delivering a ball too difficult to play.

bowlers get punished with no balls for trying to step too far down, which would increase the difficulty of playing the ball, for bowling too short or wide, or full tosses at head height. so a no ball for something that's making it harder for the batsman to play is completely inkeeping with this.

 

[puddleduck]

Just don't hit the stumps. Seriously, you laugh at someone doing it at club level, let alone someone being paid 100,000 a year to do nothing but bowl.

It's right that it's a no ball for knocking the bails off, because that's what the laws are. Not really sure what the fuss is about to be honest, just don't bleedin' do it and there's not an issue.

 

[angryangy]

What is curious is how it never used to mean anything until last year. Then suddenly it was a huge distraction and now it's a favour paid to the batsmen.

The MCC specifies that this ensures the batsman is rewarded with any runs he scores; which he would not if the ball was dead. Of course, it ought to be very hard to claim you're distracted when you smack the ball to the fence. Ambiguity is one thing, but I can't help but feel as though the batsmen have cried wolf on this one and had a major windfall.

 

[puddleduck]

Just don't hit the stumps. On the odd occasion it happens, it's a no ball, meh, really not the most pressing issue cricket needs to worry about I feel

 

[zimrahil]

Yes, this might appear harsh on the bowler, but the end result should be no one hitting the stumps in future, so the ends justify the means

 

[angryangy]

I wonder if that's what they thought would happen with front foot no balls...

I know it's only a minor issue and it's normally uncommon anyway; but therein is a problem that doesn't warrant solving. I just doubt the process. I think a lot of poor law changes could be made by relenting to players' posturing.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

surely the problem is that it was becoming quite common where one player was concerned. it's not as if it's a seagull flying across the wicket uncommon. it's something within the bowlers control and I think ruling against things players are responsible for is quite acceptable.

 

[bigred]

I think everyone should just get on with the game as normal when it happens as I don't think it really distracts anyone. Graeme Smith knew Finn had a problem with it before he arrived in England, and he and his team had obviously spoken about ways they could knock Finn of his stride. Quite smart in a way.

But if we have to have a law about it then a NO BALL is a much better scenario then a DEAD BALL, where you had people like James Frankling planting Finn into the stands, only to be told it didn't count because of Finn's knee.