stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Please don't bowl him, even though you can.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
1st Test, Edgbaston, Birmingham
- Thread starter Burgey
- Start date
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
Interestingly, the current law simply says:
- The current law doesn't specify
- The old law does, but it was subject to differing 'interpretation' which caused the dragging controversy
The current back-foot law says 'land', and the front-foot law also simply says 'land' and doesn't say one word about sliding. Presumably, there is some sort of guidance about the latter law, and wonder if there is one about the former law too. If so, than the return creases are not treated in the same manner as they used to be.
The 1947 law said:
Having umpired, and also bowled wide around the wicket, I've wondered whether or not one is allowed to drag over the return crease:
- The current law doesn't specify
- The old law does, but it was subject to differing 'interpretation' which caused the dragging controversy
The current back-foot law says 'land', and the front-foot law also simply says 'land' and doesn't say one word about sliding. Presumably, there is some sort of guidance about the latter law, and wonder if there is one about the former law too. If so, than the return creases are not treated in the same manner as they used to be.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Has a bowling attack ever had so many 'ys' in it?
England have got 'Broady', 'Woakesy', 'Stokesy', 'Rooty', Denly and Ali.
England have got 'Broady', 'Woakesy', 'Stokesy', 'Rooty', Denly and Ali.
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They probably should think about replacing it with the 'You're ****, and you know you are' chant popular at the football.
andmark
International Captain
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
There’s nothing wrong with the law in theory, but the on field umpire seeing it is another matter.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This is what I've got from those changes as well. I've got footage from 1965 of Jackie Botten landing with most of his foot across though and it being across 'at the instant of delivery', so it wasn't enforced very well.
I should add that the change is more generous, no need to make it even more so.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Australia's session comfortably. England bowled trash, frankly. Leach would've been a lot better here. A quality bowler is always better than a no rounder (on form, Moeen is one) unless you're paying on a road. Always. Smith looks all set for another century whilst rescuing his team, although he's had way better support and England have failed to exploit conditions. The gap between the best in the world and the runner up has never been greater than when Sobers was at his peak.
Heboric
International Regular
If Shakespeare was alive today he would be sitting amongst the Barmy Army for inspiration, what eloquence.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That was the session of the mysterious disappearing Chris Woakes.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I have no idea. That has to be the only answer.
cnerd123
likes this
It's about landing. If it moves after landing it's fine.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Would if I had a twitter.
cnerd123
likes this
Losing two front line quicks is incredibly unfortunate for England. It's hard enough having to bowl to Steve Smith with them