Changes to Law 24

[gooders]

It would appear that there are to be changes to the law from Oct 2013, and bowlers who break the wicket at the non-striker's end in the act of delivery will be guilty of bowling a no ball. I will be particularly interested to see how this conflicts with running out the non-striker in the delivery stride as applied by the ICC.
How do my colleagues feel about the changes?

[umpire]

Interesting to see if it will happen & apply in future

[budster]

i hope this doesnt prove to be the case.

the issue has arisen because South Africa wanted to put Steve Finn off his stride and they were able to get in the ear of the least able of the umpires on the international list.

Since then the international umpires have felt obliged to support their colleague and have applied a ridiculous ruling. (if the disturbance of the stumps is distracting, it is distracting everytime not just on the second occasion)

the fielding side is disadvantaged by the wicket being down, that should be enough

if the law makers must change things then 'no ball' is more appropriate than 'dead ball' but as gooders says there are other implications which dont appear to have been considered

[gooders]

Oh it's going to happen. If you check on the Lords website, you will see it there in black and white.

[missingleg]

I don't see what was wrong with the 'old' system (I say old because if it's not changing until 1st Oct then in The UK we have a whole season of doing nothing when this happens).

If a bowler breaks the wicket when bowling then that already disadvantages his team as it becomes very very difficult to effect a run out at that end for the duration of the ball being live.

If that highly questionable dead ball against South Africa hadn't been called we would not be talking about this now...do we now call dead ball for a bowler who grunts when bowling? Isn't that as 'distracting'?

[jaybee]

missingleg
I agree entirely.
I think most of us agree that the umpires were conned into doing something and weak umpiring led to a poor decision by the powers that be to try to do something to alleviate the side-effects of the original umpire's decision.
We're now in a situation where the fielding side is penalised for something which was probably to their disadvantage anyway.
It's another example of rule changes (OK - I know they're Laws!) instituted for the tiny minority in the international / 1st class game making life more complicated for the 95%+ of people who play at other levels.
It might even have made more sense to have had a warning sequence (without penalty) applied by the umpire with an ultimate sanction of the bowler being taken off.
I know we tend to think of golf as being too legalistic in its rules, but their phrase 'rub of the green' - meaning that it's a game and you have to get on with it - would have been the most appropriate answer to this non-problem.

[srinivasan]

The moment the announcement was made about this change, I had the same question in my mind as what gooders has mentioned. However, then considering the fact that to "run-out" a non-striker by the bowler before he completes his delivery swing, (ICC regulations), the bowler needs to have an intention (make an attempt) of running out the non-striker. This change in the Law from Oct 1 2013 (and ICC playing condition from Apr 30) is to do with 'other than running out the non-striker'. Hence, even though it is to be called a no-ball, the non-striker would not be out as there is no intention. If it was a deliberate attempt to run out the non-striker, obviously it would not be a no-ball.

Would like to know what others think.

[viswajith]

my personal view is that if he put down the wicket and he didnt deliver the ball,it can be given out....and since the ball is not delivered it cant be a noball....if he delivers,it is to be call no ball