Batsman bowled out on full toss ball above waist

[Jarquis]

I've heard that before, but can't see anything official on it - closest I can find is "A fast high full pitched ball shall be defined as a ball that passes, or would have passed, on the full above waist height of a Batsman standing upright at the crease." (source may not be up to date, however).

Also, can't you get away with up to shoulder height if you're a slower bowler? Which would mean that in the OP's case it would have been a legal delivery (assuming it wasn't an insane moonball)?

Edit: found this in the ICC Playing Conditions



Confirms my first sentence, disproves my second. However, I guess a spinner might not get warned for a full toss that's just above waist height due to their relative lack of speed? Whereas I'd imagine a pacer would always get warned simply by virtue of their pace making such deliveries inherently much more dangerous

The laws, as they stand, declare that any full-toss over the waist is dangerous and requires a warning.

 

[cnerd123]

The laws, as they stand, declare that any full-toss over the waist is dangerous and requires a warning.

that's actually being modified - the MCC wants to leave it up to umpire discretion

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-announces-intended-changes-to-law-41-7

MCC TODAY ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAS AMENDED LAW 41.7, THE LAW WHICH CONCERNS THE BOWLING OF DANGEROUS AND UNFAIR NON-PITCHING DELIVERIES (BEAMERS).
The Law published a little over twelve months ago imposed stricter penalties on a bowler who delivers a full toss over the batsman’s waist.

Since its introduction, feedback has been received which suggests strongly that the new sanctions were overly severe (especially to younger bowlers).

In many cases, Governing Bodies introduced their own playing conditions that rendered the new Law irrelevant.

In response to this feedback, the Laws sub-committee has reviewed Law 41.7 and – with the support of the Cricket committee, World Cricket committee and MCC Committee – agreed that it should be adjusted, with effect from 1st April 2019, to allow umpires to make a more subjective decision over which deliveries are dangerous.

This and other minor clarifications and corrections from the 1st Edition will also be incorporated into the 2nd Edition.

All other changes will be confirmed by early January 2019 ahead of universal adoption from 1st April 2019. MCC’s Laws eLearning platform will be updated in the New Year to reflect the amends.

 

[trundler]

Imagine posting to cricket web about some confusion regarding the laws of the game only to have nerds hijack the thread without giving you a definitive answer.

 

[cnerd123]

Imagine posting to cricket web about some confusion regarding the laws of the game only to have nerds hijack the thread without giving you a definitive answer.

Are you referring to yourself and others discussing your bowling speeds after I had answered his questions in the 4th post?

Because if so I absolutely agree.

 

[Jarquis]

that's actually being modified - the MCC wants to leave it up to umpire discretion

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-announces-intended-changes-to-law-41-7

There's a reason I said 'as they stand'

 

[trundler]

Are you referring to yourself and others discussing your bowling speeds after I had answered his questions in the 4th post?

Because if so I absolutely agree.

Ok

 

[ankitj]

Are you referring to yourself and others discussing your bowling speeds after I had answered his questions in the 4th post?

Because if so I absolutely agree.

Not sure if I'm convinced by your answer. I can't recall a ball that hit stumps being no balled ever for height. Is there anything in written laws stating it clearly.

 

[cnerd123]

Not sure if I'm convinced by your answer. I can't recall a ball that hit stumps being no balled ever for height. Is there anything in written laws stating it clearly.

Are you trolling me

We've literally quoted and linked to the law in this thread. There is no law that says the ball hitting the stumps overrules a no ball.

The reason you haven't see in is because the average batsman's waist is much higher than the stumps and international bowlers don't bowl slow moon balls that go on a downward trajectory past a batsman's waist.

 

[ankitj]

Are you trolling me

We've literally quoted and linked to the law in this thread. There is no law that says the ball hitting the stumps overrules a no ball.

The reason you haven't see in is because the average batsman's waist is much higher than the stumps and international bowlers don't bowl slow moon balls that go on a downward trajectory past a batsman's waist.

OK. So I was believing in a falsehood for about 20 years. Damn!

 

[cnerd123]

Its amazing how passionate and perfectly knowledgeable cricket fans often have such a poor grasp of the laws

You all should actually sit down to read them some time. The MCC even has a phone app with a quiz on it to test your knowledge.

 

[OverratedSanity]

These ankitj posts are some of the oddest I've ever seen wtf.

 

[Daemon]

Above waist height ball when hits the stumps, it's not called a no ball.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Kinda remind me of the time Chanderpaul got LBW when the ball hit him above his waist

 

[ankitj]

These ankitj posts are some of the oddest I've ever seen wtf.

Don't get dramatic now

 

[Midwinter]

They outlawed lob bowling sometime in the '80's didn't they ?