Bowler hiding the ball

[CaptNimmo]

In a game last weekend, an opposition bowler ran in with the ball in his pocket and only took it out at the last second to bowl. Never seen this before Is it legal and if not what rule prohibits it?

 

[Shri]

Hope he didn't reach too far into his pocket.

 

[MCC111]

I've not seen putting it in the pocket, but covering the ball is something a lot of bowlers do - especially if there's reverse swing.

 

[Hurricane]

I don't think the ball is "live" until he delivers it - so I think he is ok with having it in his pocket from that point of view.

However it would be highly off putting to see someone run in without holding the ball - especially on their first ball.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You're more than entitled to step away if he does this to confirm whether it's an actual delivery or just a run through.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You're more than entitled to step away if he does this to confirm whether it's an actual delivery or just a run through.

What if the bowler insists on continuing to do that every delivery? There must be a point when the umpire steps in and asks the batsman to stop being a nancy and get on with the game.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

What if the bowler insists on continuing to do that every delivery? There must be a point when the umpire steps in and asks the batsman to stop being a nancy and get on with the game.

Oh yeah obviously. But the first time I'd definitely do it just to make sure and there's no way the ump would have a problem with that.

 

[GGG]

Who was that idiot Aussie bowler that tried flapping his arms when he was running in? If there isn't a law that dead/no balls a bowlers attempt to distract the batsman that isn't part of his legitimate action then there should be.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Jason Gillespie.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, 2001 Kolkata Test day 4.

 

[Daemon]

Harbhajan's been flapping before delivery his whole life

 

[G.I.Joe]

 

[marc71178]

Who was that idiot Aussie bowler that tried flapping his arms when he was running in? If there isn't a law that dead/no balls a bowlers attempt to distract the batsman that isn't part of his legitimate action then there should be.

If Finn knocking the stumps is a no ball then so should that.

 

[Hurricane]

If Finn knocking the stumps is a no ball then so should that.

No - both are distracting - but him knocking off the bail makes a run out more difficult at the non strikers end. Which you could say so what to as he is part of the fielding side - but it is traditional to stop play whenever the bails are accidentally knocked off at any stage.

 

[marc71178]

So distracting that the main complainant was able to cover drive him for 4 after he knocked the bails off?

 

[GGG]

If Finn knocking the stumps is a no ball then so should that.

Absolutely, what Jason Gillespie done was actually a lot worse, he was purposely trying to distract the batsman.

 

[sensally123]

It depends on what bowlers are comfortable with.
But Suspect Bowling Actions are supposed to be monitored and define whether the actions fit in the ICC's laws of the game.

So, as long as suspect & monitoring does not take place its legitimate or else needful would have been done by then.

 

[uvelocity]

listen up ****s and listen up good. there will be no discussion of disallowing the seagull on these forums. none.

 

[Riggins]

Absolutely, what Jason Gillespie done was actually a lot worse, he was purposely trying to distract the batsman.

no different than a batsman backing away, or faking to back away, just as the bowler is preparing to release the ball imo.

 

[GGG]

no different than a batsman backing away, or faking to back away, just as the bowler is preparing to release the ball imo.

Sure, but the difference is there is no way to prove that the batsman backed away on purpose.