• 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.

Looking for a clarification on a rule...

Sudeep

International Captain
I was playing street cricket today, and there was a huge ruckus, that broke as a result of a fine point in a rule.

What happened was this: A bowler bowled a full pitch delivery that passed the batsman, who stayed in his crease, above the waist height. However, it was a looped delivery, so there was a significant reduction in height as it reached the line of the stumps, and kissed the bails, which fell off. It was given no ball, then reversed to a wicket, then reversed to a no ball again, before all hell broke lose, and it all almost came to a fist fight between players.

Now, the question is: is it a no ball, or a wicket?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
If it was given no ball, then its a no ball. After the batsman sees the signal of a no ball, he cannot be dissmed by it (except run out), so it is irrelevent whether the bails were clipped or not. The blame rests soely on the umpire and his decision to give it a no ball, but the batsman is not out.


BTW, I used to live (and play street cricket) in Baroda, where do you live?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I think it's a no-ball. The umpire should signal no-ball if it passes the batter above waist-height when he's standing normally.

Must've dipped a heck of a lot to hit the stumps!
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
BoyBrumby said:
I think it's a no-ball. The umpire should signal no-ball if it passes the batter above waist-height when he's standing normally.

Must've dipped a heck of a lot to hit the stumps!

Or the bowler was a traditional Indian paceman, in which case the ball had six seconds to dip from when it passed the batsman until it reached the stumps.
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
BoyBrumby said:
I think it's a no-ball. The umpire should signal no-ball if it passes the batter above waist-height when he's standing normally.

Must've dipped a heck of a lot to hit the stumps!
Unless a spinner (or, as the rules so precisely put it: a slow-paced delivery) is bowling, in which case the ball only needs to pass above shoulder height.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Samuel_Vimes said:
Unless a spinner (or, as the rules so precisely put it: a slow-paced delivery) is bowling, in which case the ball only needs to pass above shoulder height.

Either way, its not the batsmans' fault. The ball was declared a no ball by the umpire, and at that point he cannot be dismissed by it, no matter what.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Samuel_Vimes said:
Unless a spinner (or, as the rules so precisely put it: a slow-paced delivery) is bowling, in which case the ball only needs to pass above shoulder height.
That's very ambiguous, isn't it?

How slow is slow? What height was Cairns's slower ball at when it passed Read in '99, I wonder? If it was over waist-height should it have been a no-ball or allowed 'cos it was a "slow" delivery?
 

greg

State Captain
This is one of the stupidest laws in cricket. I have no idea why the distinction between "slow" and "quick" bowling is persisted with. All balls passing the striker above waste height should be noballs and that would be the end of it.
 

greg

State Captain
BoyBrumby said:
That's very ambiguous, isn't it?

How slow is slow? What height was Cairns's slower ball at when it passed Read in '99, I wonder? If it was over waist-height should it have been a no-ball or allowed 'cos it was a "slow" delivery?
It passed Read at ground level ;)
 

FRAZ

International Captain
Its an out . Happens here all the time . Its a darn out . A delivery is a delivery until it reaches the stump and the dumb umpire should be able to see what happened to the stumps . However if the umpire has given it a No-Ball then its not out . But depends because the umpire's discretion to take his decision back or not . If there is a sane umpire then he should give it an out and can over rule his previous no ball decision .
We(me and my playing) buddies after a long discussion and negotiations came to this conclusion that its "out"if it hits the stumps . And one more thing if a spinner is bowling a full toss over the waist hight then its not a no-ball at all . mind that ............
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
I would have noballed it in a kids' game but not in an adult match; but once the noball's been called it's not out.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
There is a thing called "discretion" which can let the umpire to over-rule his decision .
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Yes; but you can't do it if play has been affected by the decision. If you reverse the no-ball, play must come back to where the decision's reversed, then the ball must surely become dead and therefore the batter is not out.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
Nope ! It may well be called an out .
I know what you are saying but still an umpire has a discretion power to treat a "legal delivery" in a proper way .
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Not if he's previously called it no ball, since the batsman can then argue that since it was a no ball called he changed his shot.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
marc71178 said:
Not if he's previously called it no ball, since the batsman can then argue that since it was a no ball called he changed his shot.
Argument by the player ... :wacko:
Gatting , Rana Saga ?
 

Binit

Cricket Spectator
IT'S A NO-BALL.

Let me explain how..

You said the ball was delivered as a loop or in a projectile motion, so it means that when it was closest to the batsman batting around a meter ahead of the wickets, it must have been above his waist.

As we all know that wickets in cricket matches are just a little shorter than what an average batsman's highest is, and since the ball JUST CLIPPED THE BAILS, it must have been over the waist height.

Of course that match didn't had replays to confirm that, but I have studied Physics and I feel a ball needs some horizontal motion as well to just clip the stumps, from the batsman.... which makes it higher than the waist..

So.. A No Ball. Period.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
If the ball was looping down then it was definately bowled by a spinner (not talking about the slower delivery by a fast bowler) and a full toss over the waist hight by a spinner is not called a beemer its called a "lolypop".
And it is definately out . I can bet on that because its an expert decision that I was talking about ....
 

Sudeep

International Captain
The ball was bowled by a medium-pacer. He lost the grip of the ball, and thus the looped delivery. Plus, the batsman was short, probably 5'6".
 

Sudeep

International Captain
silentstriker said:
If it was given no ball, then its a no ball. After the batsman sees the signal of a no ball, he cannot be dissmed by it (except run out), so it is irrelevent whether the bails were clipped or not. The blame rests soely on the umpire and his decision to give it a no ball, but the batsman is not out.


BTW, I used to live (and play street cricket) in Baroda, where do you live?
Gotri Road. How about you?
 

Top