Bowled off a high no-ball

[paulturner62]

As cricketers in Taiwan we are required to umpire games and hence there is a great deal of disagreement over rules as we are not experts. This happened yesterday.

A bowler of slow medium pace bowled a ball which passed the batsman over waist high but then hit the top of the stumps.

He was given out. I was told by the umpire that it is an ICC rule that if the batsman is bowled off a high no-ball it no longer a no-ball and he is out.

Is this correct.

[Reggie Duff]

As far as I am aware Paul there has been no change to the laws in this regard. Law 42.6(b) states;

Bowling of high full pitched balls

(i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on
the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease is to
be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury
on the striker.
(ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above shoulder height
of the striker standing upright at the popping crease is to be deemed dangerous and
unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker.

The ICC might have a playing condition for International matches that states otherwise, but that would not apply to your local competition unless it was also in your local rules.

I would have to say though that for a ball to dip from above waist height to bowl a batsman it was probably deemed to be a slow delivery and therefore he would be out bowled.

[jaybee]

I agree with Reggie.

There's another thing to consider: the test is whether the delivery passes above the waist of "the striker standing upright at the popping crease."
As most batsmen will have the knee bent a little and may be leaning forward - or may have moved outside the crease - there could be a few odd inches of difference between what many perceive and what the law actually says.

One further point - the decision is with the bowler's end umpire (where it's that bit harder to judge) and many players haven't cottoned on to this change which I think came through in the 2000 changes!

[gooders]

The thing which always astounds me is just how many batsmen seem to think that their hips are where their waist is, when in fact it is considered to be a good few inches higher.

[Reggie Duff]

I couldn't agree more gooders. Most Batsmen seem to think their waist is where their belt would be if wearing one, when in fact, unless they are the proverbial Harry High Pants it is considerably higher. Just to confuse this issue though Cricket Victoria in their winter classes tell us that the belt line should be taken as the waist in relation to Law 42.6(b), and as the lecturers are 1st class umpires / international umpires, maybe this is the common practice now?

[missingleg]

Why would they do that when the Law states waist line and not belt line?!

When it's marginal I tend to let it go, because as soon as it's called you have to go through the warning procedure.

[Reggie Duff]

I'm not sure why missingleg, but the way its worded makes me think that its not just Cricket Victoria that look at it this way. Have a look at the attached page from the Winter Classes booklet, in particular the note just above 42.7 near the bottom of the page. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, and anybody else who might have a definitive answer, because I really doubt that CV would print this without it being Cricket Australia policy at least.

Attachments:

[missingleg]

Very interesting. It seems then that different matches are played under different definitions of 'waist'. According to our course tutor, the ECB sent guidelines deeming that the waist is at the bottom of the rib cage. Indeed, according to the dictionary the waist is 'the part of the body in humans between the ribs and the hips, usually the narrowest part of the torso'. If the ball reaches the batsman standing upright at the crease above this level, I will call no ball and go through the warning procedure.

[jaybee]

This is developing into an interesting near-medical topic!

I don't think that the line of the belt can be taken because that's inconsistent and something moveable up or down. In particular in somebody (like me) whose waistline has expanded a bit more than it should the belt line tends to slip down towards the hips no matter what happens (short of threatening self-harm by going several notches too tight!).

The top of the hips seems to me to be too low - it's certainly not the waist.
Similarly the bottom of the ribcage is perhaps too high ...
... so ...
... after a period of navel-gazing I've come to the conclusion that the line of the navel (belly button to our coarser participants) is about right as it's roughly halfway between the two.

Of course in practice you still have to estimate - or guess - where that is and where it would be if the striker stood upright at the crease and how high the ball was - or would have been - when it passed over the popping crease. In the end it's the umpire's opinion and I'm glad sometimes that there's no TV replay available.

It means too that there's an element of Law 43 to this.

I'd go along with missingleg's comment:
"When it's marginal I tend to let it go, because as soon as it's called you have to go through the warning procedure"
... but only if I was happy with the relative skill of the batsman and lack of venom in the delivery.
On the other hand with a fiery bowler and an inexperienced batsman perhaps it's wiser not to let it go and a marginal delivery might be called the other way.

In my view the most important thing - if you do call - is to make sure that the warning procedure is followed.

[daveh]

Jaybee, can't disagree with any of that.

Regards daveh