ICC announce ODI law changes

[Richard]

I like dropped catches when India is batting.

I don't even like them when England are batting, TBH. I want to see our batsmen score through their own skill, not the ineptitude of the opposition fielding.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't even like them when England are batting, TBH. I want to see our batsmen score through their own skill, not the ineptitude of the opposition fielding.

What about through the ineptitude of opposition bowling?

 

[Richard]

Completely different matter, though you might have noticed I don't like to see inept bowling either.

Nor inept batting, for that matter.

 

[open365]

You're kidding, aren't you? That's fourteen extra deliveries!!!!!!!!!!!! Heaven knows how many runs can be scored off those - and that's before we even consider the 14 extra runs, plus anything you get for hearing the call early and having a swat.

It could quite easily add another 50 runs to the match total. 250-plays-250; 275-plays-275; there's a huge difference.

I think some people seriously underrate the effect no-balls can have on a limited-overs game.

Why give them away when you can not give them away? Just a couple of no-balls per 10 overs can quite easily cost you 10 runs - that changes a good 10-37-1 into a poor 10-47-1.

There's no excuse for getting anywhere near the popping-crease, especially for a spinner - you gain absolutely nothing by doing so, when you propel the ball at 50mph and more the difference in reaction time for an extra 20cm or so is virtually nothing.

And in both of those hypothetical situations the result was the same, the point i was making is that both sides do it so unless one has a perrenial no baller on a bad day then it's pretty much even stevens.

For spinners, there's no excuse, but for pace bowlers i understand it.

It's really not as easy as saying 'just bowl 10 inches behind the crease'. You base your run up on landing at or close to the line because it's a visual aid, this is why extending your run up by a foot to stop bowling no balls never works, you just extend your stride length and end up being in more a mess before.

 

[open365]

It's just pure indiscipline IMO - whether ingrown or just slackness. And I hate it like I hate virtually nothing in cricket, except dropped catches.

I've never understood this thing you have with the peripheries of cricketing skills.

I can understand maybe that you don't like seeing batsmen score after they've given a chance, but from a neutral perspective i don't get it.

Fielding is a skill, imo a more inate one than batting or bowling, dropping catches is not a result of laziness or bad practice anymore than faults in someone's cover drive. Dropped catches are always going to happen because catching a cricket ball is a hrad thing to do.

And from the other side of the coin, aren't dropped catches good because they punish a side for bad fielding?

 

[Pratters]

It was nothing but a tit-for-tat, and I'm surprised you didn't notice it. It'd have been more accurate to say "I don't care" rather than "who cares" which suggests most people don't.

Actually, I will reply. What tit-for-tat are you referring to?

As I said, it was to put emphasis which is very much normal. There are two kinds of writing. The stupid writing which says x for x and the intellegent writing which can mean a lot more on how you place words. I am not you and I would not use some thing like I don't care that there and it is stupid to try to correct that there on your part because there is no right or wrong way there. I will give you an example. In the Dilip Sardesai thread, you say That 66 is no age!. How would you feel if some one replied that "that was incorrect because 66 is technically an age. You should have written 66 is a very young age and I am shocked he is dead at this particular age" You would feel that the other person made a very stupid reply, wouldn't you?

Regards.

 

[adharcric]

Haha, not again guys.

 

[adharcric]

Completely agree with SS. Since when are no-balls such a big deal that you should get charged two free hits (which could easily result in 12 runs) simply for bowling a no-ball? That rule is simply ridiculous. By the way, bowlers already try quite hard to avoid no-balls - some can do it well and some can't - adding this "incentive" will not make a huge difference.

 

[Richard]

And in both of those hypothetical situations the result was the same, the point i was making is that both sides do it so unless one has a perrenial no baller on a bad day then it's pretty much even stevens.

So you think "it's OK for us to bowl a few because they probably will"?

Bad idea. Very bad idea.

It's really not as easy as saying 'just bowl 10 inches behind the crease'. You base your run up on landing at or close to the line because it's a visual aid, this is why extending your run up by a foot to stop bowling no balls never works, you just extend your stride length and end up being in more a mess before.

Because it's ingrown. Some seamers (OK... a few) never bowled no-balls, because they built their run-ups on landing a bit behind the crease. It's just most haven't had said sense.

 

[Richard]

I've never understood this thing you have with the peripheries of cricketing skills.

I can understand maybe that you don't like seeing batsmen score after they've given a chance, but from a neutral perspective i don't get it.

Fielding is a skill, imo a more inate one than batting or bowling, dropping catches is not a result of laziness or bad practice anymore than faults in someone's cover drive. Dropped catches are always going to happen because catching a cricket ball is a hrad thing to do.

And from the other side of the coin, aren't dropped catches good because they punish a side for bad fielding?

Well... I'd kinda say they were a result of bad fielding... no?

I know full well that dropped catches aren't always a result of laziness - unlike no-balls there's never any chance they can be fully eradicated. But I hate seeing both equally, and I enjoy cricket most when there's as little of the two as possible because it's a higher calibre that way.

 

[Richard]

Actually, I will reply. What tit-for-tat are you referring to?

As I said, it was to put emphasis which is very much normal. There are two kinds of writing. The stupid writing which says x for x and the intellegent writing which can mean a lot more on how you place words. I am not you and I would not use some thing like I don't care that there and it is stupid to try to correct that there on your part because there is no right or wrong way there. I will give you an example. In the Dilip Sardesai thread, you say That 66 is no age!. How would you feel if some one replied that "that was incorrect because 66 is technically an age. You should have written 66 is a very young age and I am shocked he is dead at this particular age" You would feel that the other person made a very stupid reply, wouldn't you?

Regards.

Indeed, you're quite right about my comment in said thread.

Nonetheless, you've pulled me up on a fair bit of late, so I did the same. I've thought said aforementioned stuff has been pretty trivial too.

 

[Pratters]

Nonetheless, you've pulled me up on a fair bit of late, so I did the same.

Except the recent thread which I created, most if not each time I have argued with you, it has been because of you commenting first directly/indrectly regarding me or my posts. If some one does that, I am bound to give my opinions. I have also said that I like you as a person. Pulling up just for the sake of it is a bit trivial. I reiterate, I have nothing against you.

 

[Richard]

I know. I like you as well. But I'm not sure when me making a not-totally-serious-post that you didn't realise wasn't totally serious happened in a post specifically replying to you? I'm not saying it isn't, but all the instances you've pulled me up on have seemed to be related to others. I could quite understand if you thought I was criticising you because I failed to convey the jest\not-seriousness.

One that comes to mind is my comment about Aseem (Turb) and Angra in some thread I can't remember.

 

[Pratters]

I had posted in this post that Turbinator hits on every one. Mind, Turbs and I were just joking with each other. You post that any one who would suggest that he hits on others is gobsmacked. That did indirectly refer to me.

 

[Richard]

Yes, I see what you mean now. Hadn't thought about it before.

Please accept my apologies.

 

[Pratters]

Glad there is no confusion...

 

[sohummisra]

I don't even like them when England are batting, TBH. I want to see our batsmen score through their own skill, not the ineptitude of the opposition fielding.

Every good innings needs a little bit of ineptitude. I'd rather it be the fielders than the bowlers or the umpires.

 

[Richard]

Nah, gimme poor bowlers every time. With catches or bad Umpiring decisions it's so specific - you would have been out there and then if you get a let-off.

With bad bowling you at least beat what was put in front of you.

 

[open365]

So you think "it's OK for us to bowl a few because they probably will"?

Bad idea. Very bad idea.

Because it's ingrown. Some seamers (OK... a few) never bowled no-balls, because they built their run-ups on landing a bit behind the crease. It's just most haven't had said sense.

A) In short, yes, if no balls aren't a massive problem with the bowling attack then i'm not paticulary worried about it

B) Who are these seamers? I highly doubt that the reason they don't bowl no balls is because they learned to get their run up a fair bit before the crease. In my experience people who bowl less no bowls do so because they have a consistent run up and aren't super fast, thus them bowling not bowling no balls is a result of them being a good bowler, not because they try not to.

 

[Pup Clarke]

B) Who are these seamers? I highly doubt that the reason they don't bowl no balls is because they learned to get their run up a fair bit before the crease. In my experience people who bowl less no bowls do so because they have a consistent run up and aren't super fast, thus them bowling not bowling no balls is a result of them being a good bowler, not because they try not to.

Ranadeb Bose, the Indian seamer has apparently never bowled a no ball in his cricketing career.