Topic: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!! (Read 4162 times)

charlie15 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2012, 12:56:26 PM »

Quote from: ManHOOS on December 11, 2012, 12:47:48 PM

Some interesting replies here

but in all fairness dont you think that they should ammend this rule to avoid controversies etc

plus for juniors or in some leagues it will be easy to implement the rule & it will much easier to follow ... Let's take example of myself...i dont want my SIXER in the parking area with all my energy & effort turn into a deadball just because that micky mouse has kicked stumps while bowling...

Don't waste your energy and hit six then!

Nickauger · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2012, 01:07:24 PM »

Quote from: ManHOOS on December 11, 2012, 12:47:48 PM

Some interesting replies here

Being completely diluted by your gibberish!

Manormanic · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2012, 01:08:38 PM »

Quote from: Nickauger on December 11, 2012, 01:07:24 PM

Being completely diluted by your gibberish!

like!

tim2000s · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2012, 01:09:31 PM »

Quote from: ManHOOS on December 11, 2012, 12:47:48 PM

Some interesting replies here

but in all fairness dont you think that they should ammend this rule to avoid controversies etc

plus for juniors or in some leagues it will be easy to implement the rule & it will much easier to follow ... Let's take example of myself...i dont want my SIXER in the parking area with all my energy & effort turn into a deadball just because that micky mouse has kicked stumps while bowling...

The rule is very straightforward. It is neither a dead ball, nor a no ball. It is a valid ball. The Australian umpires, swayed by Graham Smith and Amla complaining about it being a distraction and attempting to get an upper hand in the mental battle, called it a dead ball. They then proceeded to hit a number of fours which were also called dead balls.

Following this, first class umpires in England were instructed to ignore these examples and continue with what had happened prior, i.e. nothing! This is the way this has always been and should continue to be done.

ManHOOS · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2012, 01:32:20 PM »

Quote from: Nickauger on December 11, 2012, 01:07:24 PM

Being completely diluted by your gibberish!

Quote from: Manormanic on December 11, 2012, 01:08:38 PM

like!

It is obvious some bowlers didnt like it SORRY

Quote from: tim2000s on December 11, 2012, 01:09:31 PM

The rule is very straightforward. It is neither a dead ball, nor a no ball. It is a valid ball. The Australian umpires, swayed by Graham Smith and Amla complaining about it being a distraction and attempting to get an upper hand in the mental battle, called it a dead ball. They then proceeded to hit a number of fours which were also called dead balls.

Following this, first class umpires in England were instructed to ignore these examples and continue with what had happened prior, i.e. nothing! This is the way this has always been and should continue to be done.

Ah ok thanks for clarification

Cheers

Johnny · « **Reply #20 on:** December 11, 2012, 02:35:06 PM »

Quote from: tim2000s on December 11, 2012, 01:09:31 PM

The rule is very straightforward. It is neither a dead ball, nor a no ball. It is a valid ball. The Australian umpires, swayed by Graham Smith and Amla complaining about it being a distraction and attempting to get an upper hand in the mental battle, called it a dead ball. They then proceeded to hit a number of fours which were also called dead balls.

Following this, first class umpires in England were instructed to ignore these examples and continue with what had happened prior, i.e. nothing! This is the way this has always been and should continue to be done.

But haven't the ICC also issued some 'guidance' to umpires which means they re now being called due to the precedent already set.

tim2000s · « **Reply #21 on:** December 11, 2012, 02:50:36 PM »

Quote from: Johnny on December 11, 2012, 02:35:06 PM

But haven't the ICC also issued some 'guidance' to umpires which means they re now being called due to the precedent already set.

This is what I can find in the Test Playing conditions from the MCC:

23 LAW 23 - DEAD BALL
Law 23 shall apply subject to the addition of the following to Law 23.4.
23.1 Law 23.4 � Umpire calling and signalling �Dead Ball�
In a match where Spydercam is being used, either umpire shall call and
signal �dead ball�, should a ball that has been hit by the batsman make
contact, while still in play, with the Spydercam or its cable. The ball shall
not count as one of the over and no runs shall be scored.

Johnny · « **Reply #22 on:** December 11, 2012, 03:05:52 PM »

This is from a CricInfo article

"Finn's tendency was regarded seriously enough to be brought up at the pre-tournament briefing for coaches and captains during which they were told that any bowler breaking the stumps would first receive a warning and on every further occasion the delivery would be ruled as a dead ball"

This was the pre-brief for the 20/20 World Cup but seems to have been adopted elsewhere.

Author Topic: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!! (Read 4162 times)

charlie15

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!

Nickauger

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!

Manormanic

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!

tim2000s

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!

ManHOOS

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!

Johnny

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!

tim2000s

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!

Johnny

Re: Why should a batsman penalised for this dumbbb rule ...!!!