Free-hits in Tests?

[GIMH]

Batting team should get a wicket struck off every time there's a no-ball tbh

 

[Craig]

But wouldn't a team just bowl a no-ball every time then?

 

[sledger]

very much against this idea tbh, shame really as michael slater is often right on the money with his views.

 

[Matteh]

Don't think Slater was necessarily for or against it, was just creating some discussion. Lawry on the other hand, he wants a no-ball to be worth 4 now.

 

[sledger]

another stupid idea.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In the (good old?) days of the back foot law the no-ball was practically a free hit as the batsman had an extra split second to adjust his stroke. These days unless it's a really slow spinner the batsman doesn't have that luxury.

 

[Richard]

Steyn's was yesterday, IIRC.

They were both on the 27th... I think. Obviously the 27th was at different times in different countries though.

But anyway, they jolly well should be a deterrent. If they aren't, well bowlers aren't renowned for their brains, are they?

The fact that no-balls are still bowled, sometimes by the crateload, despite the fact it's not remotely difficult to not bowl 'em, suggests it's not. The "bowlers = stupid" stereotype can only go so far, too. It's simply a problem that most people (bowlers, bowling-coaches, whoever else) don't take the matter seriously enough. Laze, as Kev says.

 

[Richard]

Bad idea in ODIs, worse in Tests. Why not stop the bowler running an and get him to serve up dolly underarm balls and see who can hit it the furthest!

I'm fed up of seeing constant rule changes to favour batsmen. One of the great things about Tests is it is still a format where there is a genuine contest between bat and ball.

As I said - and to date it looks like, thankfully, it's the way things will pan-out - when the rule-change was announced, the introduction of free-hits has simply reduced, massively, the number of no-balls in ODIs. Even without a free-hit, no-balls in the one-day game were hugely costly things. This has simply forced people to take the problem seriously, and eradicate it.

Has worked exactly as I hoped it would.

 

[silentstriker]

As I said - and to date it looks like, thankfully, it's the way things will pan-out - when the rule-change was announced, the introduction of free-hits has simply reduced, massively, the number of no-balls in ODIs. Even without a free-hit, no-balls in the one-day game were hugely costly things. This has simply forced people to take the problem seriously, and eradicate it.

Has worked exactly as I hoped it would.

I think the batsman should be out when they play the reverse sweep. That'll eradicate the shot for sure.

 

[bond21]

Internationals usually are as close as they can get without bowling a no ball every delivery, then if they bowl one with extra effort, they overstride....not complicated.

Whos dumber, the guy bowling 160km/h or the guy facing him?...

 

[sledger]

Whos dumber, the guy bowling 160km/h or the guy facing him?...

depends if the batsman is matthew hayden tbh.

 

[Jono]

The batsman should be allowed a free-hit, however they aren't allowed to wear a helmet, gloves or pads during the shot.

They can wear a box though, don't want to go too far.

 

[Richard]

I think the batsman should be out when they play the reverse sweep. That'll eradicate the shot for sure.

If you can find a reason (beyond "it's a shocking abomination of a cricket stroke") why the reverse-sweep should have to be eliminated I'll listen.

 

[Hoggy31]

The first no-ball of an over should be worth 2, with the second worth 4 and so on. No free-hits.

 

[Perm]

No.

Ashamed by the 7 people who voted that Slater is a goose.

 

[Jamee999]

No-balls should be 1 run in Tests, 2 runs in ODIs, 2 runs + free hit in Twenty20.

 

[Richard]

Evidence of English domestic cricket suggests that even 2 runs + free-hit is not sufficient deterrant, never mind 2 runs alone.

2 runs per no-ball really would be a bat-friendly outcome.

 

[Chemosit]

If you are really serious about penalising a bowler for making a genuine error, it would only be fair to impose penalties on batsmen as well. If a batsman gets a free hit when a bowler no balls, why not give the bowler a free bowl at the stumps for every swing and miss by the batsman. For crying out loud why is there always a want to tamper with what doesn't need improving?

 

[Manee]

People such as Jamee999 are looking for solutions, what is the problem?

 

[Richard]

If you are really serious about penalising a bowler for making a genuine error, it would only be fair to impose penalties on batsmen as well. If a batsman gets a free hit when a bowler no balls, why not give the bowler a free bowl at the stumps for every swing and miss by the batsman. For crying out loud why is there always a want to tamper with what doesn't need improving?

Every short run might actually be an interesting one.