Free hits

[missingleg]

I appreciate these are not 'laws' but increasingly the free hit is becoming a part of the game:

In many regulations it reads 'free hit for a foot fault no ball'. This means front foot and back foot...but does it also mean when the front foot comes across to the other side of the wicket to bowl round rather than over the wicket? ...and does it also mean (as I had today) when the bowler breaks the wicket with his foot in his delivery stride?

Guidance on what constitutes a 'foot fault' would be appreciated. Thanks.

[tippex2]

My league specifies that any breach of Law 24.5 is cause for a free hit, while other no balls are not. This includes the front foot bring on the wrong side of the stumps, but excludes breaking the wicket. This latter could be done with knee, hand, or any other part of the body, and so would be stretching a natural definition of 'foot fault'.

[missingleg]

What about breaking the wicket as well as overstepping? Or any other type of no ball for that matter!

[tippex2]

Never seen it addressed explicitly, but common sense suggests that the foot fault should trump other no balls - makes no sense for the fielding side to be able to suffer a less severe penalty because they broke 2 restrictions rather than one.

[whakidywhak]

Clarified under the recent ICC playing regulations - free hit for any No ball (even for violation of fielding restrictions)!

[gooders]

Jan 3, 2016 16:53:02 GMT whakidywhak said:

Clarified under the recent ICC playing regulations - free hit for any No ball (even for violation of fielding restrictions)!

Fortunately that only applies to games played under ICC conditions.
Unfortunately, test matches only seem to employ umpires on the elite panel who seem incapable of judging a front foot infringement.