Print

[roco]

Just a quick one for the more umpire minded people had this last week where a medium pace bowler bowled our no3 but the ball was given a no ball for height as was above waist height when it passed him as he was out of his crease!!

So the question is in or out?

[uknsaunders]

it's not out and a no-ball. I believe it can be called a no-ball at the point where it passes the batsman above waist height. Even if the ball then drops onto the stumps it was still above waist height when it passed the batter. Otherwise bowlers could bowl donkey drops into the clouds and over the batsman with the intent to land the ball onto the stumps. With regards to the batter being out of his crease, it would depend how far and whether it would be considered a normal position for a batsman.

Interesting point - we had plenty of high full tosses yesterday in our match. Felt a bit guilty no-balling one in particular as the batsman clobbered it 60 yards over the boundary into the next field!

[peplow]

but surely if the batsman stands up right near the bowler then no balls will be bowled all day worth a try!!

[ianbuchanan]

isn't the no-ball height for spinners and slow bowlers shoulder height?

[peplow]

no think they changed it so they are all waist, becuase people we're debating who was a slow bowler...

[roco]

Tbh was just hilarious as he moved out of the way of the ball then it took the bails off reminded me of the cairns Reid dismisal a while ago

I can see why it was called a no ball but is a weird one

[Talisman]

The reference to waist height is for a batsman stood in the crease.

[Mr Cricket]

this happened in one of our games this season you cannot be bowled off a height no ball because it would not be a no ball if it were to hit the stumps passing the batsman at the crease above waist height