Law 21.1 Mode of delivery

[pirate]

Morning all. So last night I was skippering a midweek 2nd XI 20/20 game. The opposition were 8 down and 25 runs short of the target. I brought a new bowler on from one end who ran up and bowled and was promptly no balled by their umpire who also happened to be their Captain. When I queried the no ball he stated that the bowler hadn't told him his bowling action so therefore it was a no ball. I've looked up the law that I think he was referring to and think he has got it completely wrong. Several other players have told me this has happened to them in the past as well, even from ECB qualified umpires in Northants Cricket League.

So Law 21.1 states that:

21.1 Mode of delivery



21.1.1 The umpire shall ascertain whether the bowler intends to bowl right handed or left handed, over or round the wicket, and shall so inform the striker.



It is unfair if the bowler fails to notify the umpire of a change in his/her mode of delivery. In this case the umpire shall call and signal No ball.

It seems to me that the key words here are "ascertain" and "change."

It's the umpire's responsibility to establish the bowling action of the new bowler and any umpire worth his salt should not let play continue until he has done so and communicated that to the batsman. If the umpire forgets to ask and allows play surely it should be a dead ball not a penalty/no ball against the bowler? If the previous bowler from the same end was also "right arm over," as was the case in this game, there has been no change in action either.

It seems to me that the law is designed to stop bowlers unfairly switching to left-handed bowling or going around the wicket to try and catch the batsman out.

I can't see any law that compels the bowler to volunteer his bowling action if not asked never mind a penalty for not doing so. I think that out of politeness and in the spirit of the game bowlers often inform the umpire when they come on but that doesn't equate to a no ball if they are not asked.

What do people think?

[budster]

I agree with you. I would expect the Umpire to ask the new bowler what his action will be and communicate it to the batsmen. After that it is the responsibility of the Bowler to keep the Umpire updated. If the umpire doesnt ask, it is a bit rich to punish the bowler.

Having said that, common sense suggests to me that the bowler would normally be sensible to advise his action after all he is going to have to give it anyway.

Sorry to say that issues like this are all too common when the game is self umpired.

[jaybee]

I agree with both pirate and budster .
On a practical point I have found it handy, once it had become clear to me which side of the stumps the bowler would choose, to 'innocently' stand in the way and only enquire "right or left hand?" if he/she didn't take the hint.
But even though the Law does impose a duty on the umpire to find out what the bowler's action will be, the sanction of a No Ball is only justified when the bowler changes it without warning.
I think we're all agreed that the dearth of proper qualified umpires is a major concern which doesn't seem to have improved much over recent years

[sillypoint]

The umpire in the instance cited got it completely wrong. Note:
1.   When a new bowler commences a spell it is the responsibility of the umpire to find out the bowler's mode of deliver ("shall ascertain") and tell the striker ("shall so inform")
2.   If a bowler wishes to change his/her mode of deliver it is the bowler's responsibility to advise the umpire ("notify the umpire")
3.   By inference, the umpire must also pass on to the striker the change of mode
4.   A no ball is only required if the bowler "fails to notify … a change"