|
|
Post by daley111 on Dec 2, 2010 18:34:04 GMT
the 2010 MCC code book Law 24.6 states that more than 2 bounces etc = no ball. The ACO newsletter dated Sept 2010 page 5 states that this has been amended so more than one bounce = no ball. Thought the 20101 Law book contained all of the changes. Anyone explain?
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Dec 3, 2010 9:37:13 GMT
The Laws allow for 2 bounces before it's a no-ball, but earlier this year the ECB put in a special regulation and said that in any match under its control, only 1 bounce will be allowed. I think this was designed to stop deliberate double bouncers in the Twenty20 Cup.
It's silly though, because many matches (including friendlies, Test matches, most amateur league matches) that aren't run by the ECB still play to the MCC Law.
I know it's inconsistant and silly, that in some matches it's legal and others it's not, so you can blame the ECB. Earlier this year in an ECB Under 11 match there were many balls which bounced twice which we had to call no-balls for. It was a bit farcical and the parents were annoyed.
Why the ECB couldn't have left this alone or kept it to the Twenty20 cup I don't know. Besides, what's wrong with bowling a deliberate double bouncer anyway? It would just get smashed!
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Dec 3, 2010 15:02:15 GMT
I fully agree with missingleg that this is nonsensical. It was brought in because some players at higher levels had practised bowling the double-bounce to confuse the batsman and take wickets. It makes you wonder what would happen if BJT Bosanquet's invention of the googly were to happen in this day and age!  Unfortunately the feeder league in which I umpire started to apply this rule part-way through the 2010 season despite specific confirmation from the guy who sent the email out from ECB that it was intended to apply only to the ECB competitions listed in the circular - and in particular not to feeder leagues. I attach a copy of the circular as it reached me*. You will see that it applies only to matches for u-13 and above and doesn't apply to earlier rounds of the u-13 and u-15 Club championships. * [Text of the ECB directive is at www.ecb.co.uk/news/double-bounce-deliveries,310659,EN.html] |
|
daveh
Junior Contributor
Posts: 7
|
Post by daveh on Dec 3, 2010 19:33:41 GMT
I've never been sure why ECB playing regulations should differ from MCC laws. The one that upsets me more than others is a ball bouncing over the strikers head height - why this is a wide according to ECB rather than a No-ball as per MCC beats me. However, in the case of multi bouncing deliveries it was clearly never intended to apply to the very youngest players.
It's also a pity that players quickly learn of such regulation changes and assume them to be law changes.
DaveH
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Dec 4, 2010 0:17:27 GMT
I think balls bouncing over head-height are still no-balls in ECB competitions such as the County Championship or Twenty20 Cup because I've seen no-balls given for them, and I think a no-ball gives you 2 extras (can anyone confirm this?). Certainly for Test matches they call them wide for some bizzarre ICC reason.
I absolutely HATE it that different cricket matches are played with different Laws and rules. It causes so much unnecessary controversy. Why do it? No other sport does to the same extent, or at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by daley111 on Dec 7, 2010 5:51:58 GMT
can someone tell me where I can find a full list of ecb directives. For example I can find no reference to a ball after pitching above head height being a wide- MCC rules state this should be a no ball?
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Dec 7, 2010 10:46:44 GMT
|
|
daveh
Junior Contributor
Posts: 7
|
Post by daveh on Dec 7, 2010 16:10:36 GMT
In an attempt to clear up the point I originally made earlier in this thread - missingleg is correct the "wide above head height" does only apply to International cricket and details are to be found in the relevant "regulations and playing conditions" link given by missingleg. I had mistakenly assumed the regulation applied to all first class cricket mainly - I think since the vast majority of first class cricket viewed is of the international variety.
My real grumble is of course that players also watch international games and are confused into believing law changes have been made which also apply to their games.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Dec 7, 2010 23:34:49 GMT
'My real grumble is of course that players also watch international games and are confused into believing law changes have been made which also apply to their games. '
Absolutely. Why cricket always goes out if its way to shoot itself in the foot is beyond me. Why can't all matches be played to the same rules & Laws? I suppose some modifications are necessary, but not to the extent of the number of bounces and what is a wide.
It causes so much confusion and trouble for players and umpires.
|
|
