• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Brett Lee - Protected Species?

Queenslander

Cricket Spectator
Explain to me how Brett Lee has had NO action taken against him for bowling a BLATANT bean-ball at Razzaq in the last one-dayer (VB series) ?

Law 42.8 states :-

8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
(a) call and signal No ball.

(b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith.

(c) implement the remainder of the procedure as laid down in 7(c) above.

Despite Razzaq bowling two full pitched deliveries at Lee (although the first one was marginal at best), how is it that NO action was taken against Lee for bowling a 140kmh+ bean-ball. It was quite apparent this was a deliberate, pre-meditated ball, aimed straight for the batsmen and something which is akin to a head-high tackle in League or a deliberate kick into the shins in soccer.

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING was done about it. Could it be that the Golden Boy is considered sacred and has teflon skin ??

I'm sure if it was Shoaib Akhtar bowling at Pontings' scon, there would have been some action taken. To make matters worse, they awarded Lee the Player of the Series award a few minutes later !! AND I'm an Australian supporter - it was embarassing to Australian cricket.
 

Fiery

Banned
Queenslander said:
Explain to me how Brett Lee has had NO action taken against him for bowling a BLATANT bean-ball at Razzaq in the last one-dayer (VB series) ?

Law 42.8 states :-

8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
(a) call and signal No ball.

(b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith.

(c) implement the remainder of the procedure as laid down in 7(c) above.

Despite Razzaq bowling two full pitched deliveries at Lee (although the first one was marginal at best), how is it that NO action was taken against Lee for bowling a 140kmh+ bean-ball. It was quite apparent this was a deliberate, pre-meditated ball, aimed straight for the batsmen and something which is akin to a head-high tackle in League or a deliberate kick into the shins in soccer.

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING was done about it. Could it be that the Golden Boy is considered sacred and has teflon skin ??

I'm sure if it was Shoaib Akhtar bowling at Pontings' scon, there would have been some action taken. To make matters worse, they awarded Lee the Player of the Series award a few minutes later !! AND I'm an Australian supporter - it was embarassing to Australian cricket.
That's what I thought too. Not the first one I've seen him bowl deliberately either. The fact it was bowled to Razzaq who bowled a couple to him made it blatantly obvious it was deliberate and he should have been fined at least.
 

Scallywag

Banned
Queenslander said:
Explain to me how Brett Lee has had NO action taken against him for bowling a BLATANT bean-ball at Razzaq in the last one-dayer (VB series) ?

Law 42.8 states :-

8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
(a) call and signal No ball.

(b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith.

(c) implement the remainder of the procedure as laid down in 7(c) above.

Despite Razzaq bowling two full pitched deliveries at Lee (although the first one was marginal at best), how is it that NO action was taken against Lee for bowling a 140kmh+ bean-ball. It was quite apparent this was a deliberate, pre-meditated ball, aimed straight for the batsmen and something which is akin to a head-high tackle in League or a deliberate kick into the shins in soccer.

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING was done about it. Could it be that the Golden Boy is considered sacred and has teflon skin ??

.
Probably the same reason Razzaq had no action taken against him.

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that Lee deliberately bowled a pre-meditated beam ball. I hope your not silly enough to say because Razzaq bowler one at him.

Queenslander said:
I'm sure if it was Shoaib Akhtar bowling at Pontings' scon, there would have been some action taken. To make matters worse, they awarded Lee the Player of the Series award a few minutes later !! AND I'm an Australian supporter - it was embarassing to Australian cricket.
What a hypocritical statement, first of all you assume if Shoiab bowler a beam ball at Ponting it would be deemed deliberate but when Razzaq bowled a beam ball at Lee it was not deemed deliberate.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Usually I would say that bowling a head-high beamer is actually so difficult to bowl accurately (coupled with the fact it's not something one generally practices) that the chance of Lee's being deliberate were so small as to render them insignificant.

However, at least one of them looked a bit too nasty to be totally accidental to me. It's probably just a perception thing but he didn't seem too sorry to have bowled them.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Scallywag said:
Probably the same reason Razzaq had no action taken against him.
Which is... what, exactly?
I'm not totally sure of the rules regarding it, but certainly Razzaq was removed from the attack, which is the one stipulation there definately is.
Personally I've always thought bowlers should be banned for at least 1 game for bowling head-high Beamers - if you can't control it that badly you shouldn't be playing.
And yes, I've bowled a few myself and whenever I do I usually ask myself "why are you playing this game". Fortunately it's not extraordinarily dangerous bowling them at 60-odd mph. In the late 70s, it's a different story.
 

Scallywag

Banned
Richard said:
Which is... what, exactly?
I'm not totally sure of the rules regarding it, but certainly Razzaq was removed from the attack, which is the one stipulation there definately is.
Personally I've always thought bowlers should be banned for at least 1 game for bowling head-high Beamers - if you can't control it that badly you shouldn't be playing.
And yes, I've bowled a few myself and whenever I do I usually ask myself "why are you playing this game". Fortunately it's not extraordinarily dangerous bowling them at 60-odd mph. In the late 70s, it's a different story.
Razzaq was only removed from the attack after bowling his second beam ball, Lee only bowled one beam ball and like Razzaq was warned after the first one, Lee however did not bowl a second which is when you are removed from the attack.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Scallywag said:
Razzaq was only removed from the attack after bowling his second beam ball, Lee only bowled one beam ball and like Razzaq was warned after the first one, Lee however did not bowl a second which is when you are removed from the attack.
Right - I was asleep, you see, so this is the first I'd heard of the Lee Beamer.
I do know the rules about one and two Beamers, y'know. :p
Still - a deliberate Beamer is disgraceful. No, of course we don't know it was deliberate but it does seem a bit odd that someone would Beam someone who'd Beamed them the same match.
As for Razzaq - the first one was bad enough, the second one - I honestly couldn't believe my eyes.
 

Fiery

Banned
Can we clarify something? I always thought they were called beam-balls but Queenslander referred to them as bean-balls with an n? Then when I goggled both there were far more replies for bean-ball which is taken from baseball when a pitch is aimed at the batter. Now I'm confused whether it's beam or bean. Does anyone have an answer to that?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The term is Beamer - don't have a clue where it comes from.
Never heard of a Beaner in my life.
 

Queenslander

Cricket Spectator
Scallywag said:
Razzaq was only removed from the attack after bowling his second beam ball, Lee only bowled one beam ball and like Razzaq was warned after the first one, Lee however did not bowl a second which is when you are removed from the attack.
Quite correct on the fact that Razzaq was removed (for the 2nd ball) after being warned already for bowling a (dangerous or unfair) full pitched delivery over waist height (Law 42.7), however Law 42.8 allows for the immediate removal of a bowler for bowling a deliberate high pitched full ball(whether he's been warned once or not). It is obviously a matter of opinion if this ball was deliberate or not. Could well have been a coincidence that Lee happened to be bowling to the same guy who let one go at his head :dry: .....

I'm not suggesting that Razzaq was totally innocent here (don't even particularly like the guy) but the fact is, Lee bowled it after he had copt a couple and didn't seem to apolegitic afterwards. Pleeeaaase, who doesn't think it wasn't deliberate ! Apart from the umpires, commentators (who were obviously "muzzled") and administrators, anyone who was watching the game (apart from the Brett Lee fan club) know it was deliberate. :cool:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Queenslander said:
I'm not suggesting that Razzaq was totally innocent here (don't even particularly like the guy) but the fact is, Lee bowled it after he had copt a couple and didn't seem to apolegitic afterwards. Pleeeaaase, who doesn't think it wasn't deliberate ! Apart from the umpires, commentators (who were obviously "muzzled") and administrators, anyone who was watching the game (apart from the Brett Lee fan club) know it was deliberate. :cool:
I don't think anyone seriously believes it wasn't deliberate... but you know what it's like these days, if he'd been removed from the attack under that ruling... hell, even I didn't know about it before you posted it here... there'd be an outcry, and when this ruling was finally dug-up and publicised, someone'd find some other excuse... and the Umpire'd be crucified, and it'd all kick-off and before you know it you'd have Emerson-1998\99 all over again. 8-)
 

Scallywag

Banned
Well you spelt it out yourself in law 42.8, its only if the umpire deems it deliberate and nobody gives a toss what the fans or commentators think and you said yourself that the umpires dont think it was deliberate

.8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
(a) call and signal No ball.
 

Fiery

Banned
Richard said:
The term is Beamer - don't have a clue where it comes from.
Never heard of a Beaner in my life.
Neither had I but I think the term bean-ball must have been lost in translation from baseball like Chinese whispers
 

Fiery

Banned
Top_Cat said:
Usually I would say that bowling a head-high beamer is actually so difficult to bowl accurately (coupled with the fact it's not something one generally practices) that the chance of Lee's being deliberate were so small as to render them insignificant.

However, at least one of them looked a bit too nasty to be totally accidental to me. It's probably just a perception thing but he didn't seem too sorry to have bowled them.
Sort of contradicted yourself there a bit Top Cat.
There is not a shadow of doubt that the one to Razzaq was payback for the two he copped. He didn't even bother to disguise it or apologise.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sort of contradicted yourself there a bit Top Cat.
Not at all. I just said that it was unlikely that Brett Lee did it deliberately considering how difficult it is to do deliberately and it's not something that one practices. Taking that into consideration, there is a chance he did do it deliberately because he certainly made np attempts to apologise AND when it happened to him, he moaned to the umpire about it even following profuse apologies from Razzaq so it would have been highly hypocritical for him to then reciprocate.

There is not a shadow of doubt that the one to Razzaq was payback for the two he copped. He didn't even bother to disguise it or apologise.
There *is* some doubt but I'm only saying that out of hope more than anything. I HOPE it was purely accidental because if not, Lee should be banned from playing all cricket for 6 months. Imagine if Razzaq had been hit by a 140km/h beamer and it put him out of the game for a few months. In light of Jarrod McCraken suing the guys who deliberately spear-tackled him, it could have been a VERY expensive revenge attack for Lee. Incredibly irresponsible act *if* it was deliberate. This is especially relevant in light of Lee's interview on the 'Fast and Furious' DVD where he talks about hating to hit batsmen and how distraught he was after hitting Alex Tudor, etc.

Bear in mind, it's only on the basis of how difficult it is to bowl a deliberate beamer at any real speed that I'm saying it may have been accidental because judging by his reaction to being beamed and his reaction after the beam ball (and that when he's beamed other players, he HAS apologised), he certainly seemed motivated to at least hurt Razzaq.

Deliberate or not, the lack of action from Ponting on the field was just stupid. He didn't even say anything to Lee which is a dereliction of his duty. Even as hard a captain as Ian Chappell, if Thommo bowled a beamer, used to give him the "pull your head in" speech.
 

Fiery

Banned
Richard said:
The term is Beamer - don't have a clue where it comes from.
Never heard of a Beaner in my life.
Neither have I but Google bean-ball and beam-ball and you will see what I mean. The phrases and meanings are too similar for it to be a coincidence.
 

Scallywag

Banned
Razzaq must have bowled his second beamer to Lee deliberately without any consideration of the consequences and all the umpires did was take him out of the attack. I dont know why Lee should be banned for six months for bowling a deliberate bouncer when Razzaq bowled one and its considered a trivial event.
 

Scallywag

Banned
Fiery said:
Neither have I but Google bean-ball and beam-ball and you will see what I mean. The phrases and meanings are too similar for it to be a coincidence.


If Murali throws one at your head its a bean ball but if Warne bowls one at your head ts a beam ball. Simple as because in baseball its a bean ball and in cricket its a beam ball.
:D :D :D
 

Top