Can you be bowled on a full toss?

[Stu C]

In a recent game a medium pace bowler bowled a full toss that bowled the batsman. It was in discussion after the game as to the legality of the delivery.

The delivery passed the batsman close to waist height so let's say it travelled just above waist height, can a batsman be bowled off this delivery?

Under law 42 it says that it is dependent on the perceived speed of the delivery, but for a ball to drop from over waist height to hit the stumps the delivery must have had minimal pace.

Should this be out or not out?

[jaybee]

Stu
It is the speed of the delivery that counts and not whether it is a slow (or medium or fast) bowler. If the ball dropped a lot that suggests that it might have been a slower ball and if so the batsman would be out.

Have a look at this thread.

[umpire50]

I suspect that an interesting discussion could be had around the question 'Where is your waistline?'!! However, for what it's worth, I understand that the ICC treat the waistline as an imaginery line between the bottom two rib bones. This would be somewhat higher than most batsmen believe!

It might also an interesting demonstration to include on umpires' courses - stand a number of trainees next to a made wicket to see how much higher their waists are than the top of the wicket.

I am 5' 11" tall; when buying trousers my inside leg measurement is 30"; some 1.5 inches higher than the top of the wicket, and my waist is several inches above the top of the inside leg measurement!!

[peterg]

Spedegue's Dropper: Colin asks for the provenance of Spedegue's Dropper (note spelling - not Spedigue's Dropper). Tom Spedegue was a character in a story by Conan Doyle, which told how a schoolmaster developed a lob that fell from 50 feet in the air. Spedegue was asthmatic, and took exercise by lobbing the ball over a rope tied between trees in the New Forest, thus perfecting his skill. He used his dropper to help England win the deciding match in an Ashes series v Australia. There was an excellent post on the matter by Michael Parkinson on cricinfo in 1999 -
link here: www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/82166.html
Regards, Peter Gillman

[oznoz]

It's been a long time since I did any sort of science study, but with Google's help I've put together a few physical arguments against any ball that hits the stumps being likely to be called a full toss.

I figure I'm a pretty average size, standing about six feet tall (1.83m), and I count my waist to be at the narrowest part of my torso which is about 45inches (1.143m) above the ground (standing upright). I also figure that when bowling I release the ball from as close to eight feet (2.44m) as makes no difference, from a point directly above the popping crease and at a trajectory of zero degrees above/below horizontal.
From these initial conditions (and ignoring air resistance and atmospheric conditions, e..g wind) to hit the top of the stumps (28.5in / 72.4cm above ground), I would have to bowl at about 116.4 kmh. At that speed, when the ball passes the crease (which the batsman is assumed to be straddling) it will be about 98cm / 38.5in above ground, or right at 'box' height for me (!).

If I've got all that right, I'd say that's a decent refutation to the likelihood of anybody being bowled by a no ball - even at a fairly gentle medium pace any ball I deliver over waist height is going to sail over the stumps, or, conversely, any ball I bowl that hits the stumps will have passed well below the waistline of just about any adult batsmen I'm likely to face. A faster bowler will be even less likely to endanger both batsman and stumps with the same delivery, and a slower bowler is hardly going to be considered dangerous unless he aims much higher than the waist.

On a somewhat related note, a query: In the letter of the Law, the phrase "dangerous and unfair" is use several times with regard to bowling fast and short-pitched or full-pitched balls, but I wonder if the two components of that phrase should be considered independently. In Spedegue's (fictional) case above, such bowling could hardly have been considered dangerous, but was it unfair enough to be called a No Ball regardless?

[sillypoint]

Regarding your last point, oznoz, the answer, as is usually the case, is in the Laws where the words "dangerous and unfair" are specifically used together throughout, so should not be considered independently. Furthermore, in Law 42.6.b.i and 42.6.b.ii we find the qualifying expression: "whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker", which emphasises that the actual possibility of injury is not the sole guide.