unusual incident during a bowling action

[oldie]

I was umpiring today, when the off-spinner came in to bowl. When his bowling arm reached the top of its position, he stopped for a split second, then continued with his action. I let the ball go but asked the bowler "what hapenned there?". I felt that this is one of the situations that is not covered by the laws, except to say that it may contravene Law 42 in attempting to distract the batsmen during the bowling action.

I told the bowler that I felt that it was against the spirit of the game and that he wasn't to do again otherwise I would no ball him and caution etc.

Can someone tell me if I am on the right track or was I getting too involved and should have just let it go? I know the non-striker thought he was a chance of being run-out before the ball was delivered.

[oldie]

Doesn't anyone have an opinion? My research since my post is that it falls under Law 42.4. The bowler can be seen as trying to distract the bastmen before the delivery, hence "dead Ball" should be called. Any thoughts???

[Reggie Duff]

You're reading too much into Law 42.4 there. That relates to fielders distracting the batsman, not the bowler distracting him. Most bowlers have variations in their actions to catch the batsman off guard - slower balls - quicker balls wronguns etc. Maybe the bowler was just trying to come up with some new variation of a slower ball and got it wrong - who knows - by the sound of it, it should have been a very bad ball though, and a decent batsman would have smashed it!!

[Reggie Duff]

Also, the non-striker IS a chance of being run out, BEFORE the bowler enters his delivery stride, not during, so as soon as the back foot is planted the batsman cannot suffer a Mankad, but before the bowler plants his back foot he can legitimately run out the non-striker, which would result in the call of Dead Ball if unsuccessful (Law 42.15 I think).

[oldie]

Thanks Reggie Duff, that is helpful, I'll keep it in mind, I'm not convinced that the bowler isn't a member of the fielding team, and by bourking his delivery, the intention is to distract rather than to deceive as is the case with a slower ball, wrongun or quicker ball.

[oldie]

I have had a discussion with other umpires in our association and we have decided that the bowler is not getting an unfair advantage, so we will not intervene in future except to say that if the batsman feels distracted by the "freeze" in action and withdraws, we will support the batsman by immediately calling dead ball.

[Reggie Duff]

That would be a good course of action. The batsman always has the opportunity to pull away. Even if he is bowled, as long as he has pulled away and not attempted in any way to play the ball, it will be called a dead ball if the umpire is satisfied that the batsman's reason for pulling away is valid. I think Laws 23.4(v) & (vi) cover it. "Making no attempt to play it" in the above laws though doesn't mean just shouldering arms, or thrusting a pad out - that is actually playing the ball, it means withdrawing from your stance at the wicket.