|
Post by cheers umps on Aug 23, 2015 18:58:00 GMT
At a recent match, I was standing at the Bowlers end, when a bowler, delivered the ball from behind me. I was unable to see the placement of his feet. Should this have been called a "No-Ball".
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 24, 2015 8:26:47 GMT
If you weren't sure it was a legal delivery, I'd say you'd little choice but to do so.
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Aug 26, 2015 22:07:16 GMT
As there's clearly no problem with the front foot, the key question is whether the back foot was within the (rearward extension of) the return crease.
It may be possible to judge from the angle the ball was delivered that it must have been well inside the crease, and therefore a fair delivery. However, if you're uncertain, you're justified in calling no-ball. You could also ask the bowler if it would be helpful for you to stand a little further back if he intends to repeat the tactic.
|
|
|
Post by Suhas Sapre on Oct 6, 2015 9:39:20 GMT
Sir, If a bowler bowls from behind you and his delivery stride was not read by the bowler's end umpire, the concerned umpires shall warn him at the first place and advise him that you would call and signal dead ball. The Law does not give authority to call and signal No ball for this. Whenever the bowlers intends to bowl differently, he would advise accordingly to the umpire. Calling the attention of umpire in change of delivery is very much required to avoid any controversy on the issue. Umpire must see the action before calling it No ball. So advise the bowler accordingly.
Suhas Sapre Baroda 6/10/2015
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Oct 7, 2015 6:40:59 GMT
@suhas I'm sorry - I don't agree that there's no authority to call 'No Ball'. The final sentence of Law 24.5 (Fair delivery – the feet) says: "If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball." It follows that really you should call 'No Ball' unless you're absolutely satisfied that the back foot was within the return crease or its imaginary extension. Admittedly it can be difficult to judge and an informal warning that you'll call if it happens again might be the most diplomatic solution (Law 43 - common sense) - but that also depends on whether you judge that the state of the match and its status allows you to give a little leeway.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Oct 26, 2015 14:24:26 GMT
I agree with jaybee - if the umpire isn't satisfied as to the legality of the delivery he is entitled to call No Ball. Field craft might suggest that you talk to the bowler after the first occurrence (unless you're convinced that the angle of the delivery means it could not have been delivered legally) and tell him you need to see where his back foot lands - so you either stand further back or he agrees not to bowl from there again.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Oct 26, 2015 14:26:41 GMT
Forgot to mention - Suhas, I'm interested to know under which Law you're advocating a first and final warning before calling Dead Ball??
|
|
|
Post by whakidywhak on Jan 3, 2016 16:17:19 GMT
If you cannot see the bowler deliver the ball you should call and signal No ball. Two reasons: 1. You are not satisfied that the delivery is legal (the arm or the feet). 2. Is the bowler attempting to run out the striker? Either way the Laws are clear on a call of No ball. Advice alone is not appropriate in my opinion. If the batsman's wicket is put down, what is your decision? If you have not called No ball, it is out, Bowled and I for one would not feel comfortable with that scenario. Of course, if you have called No ball, the striker may be Run Out.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jan 4, 2016 11:41:47 GMT
How about a ball delivered which you can't see because the bowler runs down the pitch...and the batsman looks aghast as to why you haven't called a wide. Would you call a wide on the basis that you have no idea whether or not it's a wide and don't want to penalise the batsman?
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Jan 4, 2016 11:49:32 GMT
I agree that, particularly as you've got a colleague at the striker's end who's checking the bowler's action, it's not sensible to call no-ball on the basis that "it might have been a chuck". Now that the old "not entirely satisfied" wording has been removed from the Laws, I would say that you have to have a positive reason for calling no-ball, and that if you can satisfy yourself that the feet were positioned correctly then you'd allow the delivery as a fair one.
Worth pointing out that, if you call a delivery on the basis of an action, you're then obliged to go through the procedures of caution, final warning etc etc... Not a reason not to do it if there's a genuine issue, but another indication to steer clear on the basis of guesswork.
|
|