Both are unnecessary for sure, though with vastly different consequences for the player. But, I'm all up for levelling those up. Ban the bowler for the rest of the innings if he oversteps?!
It is. I'm not sure it won't ever not be controversial, though.
Bowlers have to keep bowling and in some formats can't take wickets with a no ball, seems a decent enough punishment considering their role. The point though isn't about the punishments in game, it's about the reactions when they occur. I'm not sure why you find (or should find) one less controversial than the other when they both have to toe the Line (TM).
Yeah it's not that hard. I haven't played any professional cricket but whatever I have played it was my second nature to wait to see the ball leaving bowler's hand before leaving the crease at non striker end. It can't be that hard for professionals.
They've defamed her enough. Doesn't matter now.
If you're asking why the non-striker doesn't watch the ball from the bowlers hand, it's impractical, not to mention dangerous, at a decent level of cricket.
On rare occasions when the ball is reversing, sure. And it was not a lot of batters I guess, it was just a Sachin-VVS(or some other Indian batters) if I am not wrong.
Batsmen have literally given interviews on how they try to get a read on bowlers and their actions and release from the non-striker's end, but sure.
The point is the law is pretty clear that you have to stay in your crease till the ball is released. Why not do that? I dont see any difficulty at all in non-strikers' looking at the bowler before looking at the batsmen.
No sorry i misunderstood you, you're completely right. I meant it's dangerous to look at the bowler as a non-striker. A great way to get sconned by a ball hit back at you. You should always be watching the on-strike batsman while backing-up, and every decent-level cricketer will do this virtually all the time except possibly in the some extremely specific circumstances. This is a very basic thing.
