***Official*** India in England

[open365]

If it is at hip/abdomen height, it is not a beamer. Thanks for the cricket lesson though.

Exactly, by definition beamers are going to be close to a batsman's head, especialy if they duck.

 

[lionheart]

He will be he is our best available opener without Marvan and Sanath

yeah, but i don't think marv can get back into the national side in time for the australian tour. he hasn't played any form of serious cricket for over a year

 

[R_D]

I know you worship SreeSanth and its hard for you to swallow his stupid act, but please dont take cheapshots at others to have a go at others who are criticising you GOD for being an ass.

its pretty hard to keep the discussion up with you after those comments.
I do think it was intentional and as for reason why bowlers seem to end up bowling beamers when they are frustrated, because they are trying alot more harder and trying to bowl faster than they normally do and which ends up with them losing control of the ball and bowling beamers.

 

[adharcric]

If it is at hip/abdomen height, it is not a beamer. Thanks for the cricket lesson though.

Hmm, which is it? If beamers are only chest and above, why wouldn't you expect them to be close to the head most of the time?

By the way, a beamer is a full toss that passes above the waist.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's not a good analogy, just because they don't get an immediate ban it doesn't mean that people who bowl beamers are allowed to do it indefinitely.

It doesn't matter, it only takes one to do serious damage. The rules allow people to get in a free cheap shot if they want, without even so much as a fine - the rules are worse because there's no differentiation between just over waist and head high beamers. We all know it's virtually impossible to prove intention/motive, same as with performance enhancing drugs. It's harsh to immediately ban someone from bowling for the match because they let go a head-high beamer, but it removes a few deliberate beamers from the game then it is worth it. There has to be zero tolerance of this because it's dangerous.

 

[adharcric]

It doesn't matter, it only takes one to do serious damage. The rules allow people to get in a free cheap shot if they want, without even so much as a fine - the rules are worse because there's no differentiation between just over waist and head high beamers. We all know it's virtually impossible to prove intention/motive, same as with performance enhancing drugs. It's harsh to immediately ban someone from bowling for the match because they let go a head-high beamer, but it removes a few deliberate beamers from the game then it is worth it. There has to be zero tolerance of this because it's dangerous.

Look, I can understand your sentiments and you certainly have a point, but ...

1) Batsmen today have good enough protection and good enough reflexes to get out of the way.
2) Umpires can ban a bowler after just one beamer if they think it's intentional, or after two warnings otherwise.

 

[Sanz]

You don't need to play international cricket and take 1000 wickets to realize that beamers (even those aimed at the head) can be accidental.

Thanks for contradicting yourself...and making your post "No need to guess there ... unless he has only bowled spin or played backyard cricket." look completely useless.

Watch Brett Lee's Beamer, Waqar's beamer in last few years and you will know what I am talking about. I know a beamer can be bowled accidently, but when its directly headed towards batsman's head almost every time then it is deliberate.

 

[Sanz]

Hmm, which is it? If beamers are only chest and above, why wouldn't you expect them to be close to the head most of the time?

By the way, a beamer is a full delivery that passes above the waist.

When I questioned the direction, it was basically not about the height, It is about why most of the times beamers are headed towards batsman's head and not wide on either side of the wicket, ever thought why ? It seems to me that it is not an accident but rather deliberate.

 

[adharcric]

Thanks for contradicting yourself...and making your post "No need to guess there ... unless he has only bowled spin or played backyard cricket." look completely useless.

Watch Brett Lee's Beamer, Waqar's beamer in last few years and you will know what I am talking about. I know a beamer can be bowled accidently, but when its directly headed towards batsman's head almost every time then it is deliberate.

In your original post, you made it seem like beamers are always deliberate. That's why I said what I said. If that's not what you meant, my bad.

 

[Sanz]

Look, I can understand your sentiments and you certainly have a point, but ...

1) Batsmen today have good enough protection and good enough reflexes to get out of the way.
2) Umpires can ban a bowler after just one beamer if they think it's intentional, or after two warnings otherwise.

Having a good enough position is not an excuse to bowl a beamer. It is illegal and If the bowler bowls it intentionaly or otherwise, he should be taken out of attack immediately and dropped from the next game. If he does it again in another match, he should get 5 match ban, if he does it again then year ban. There is no room for such acts in cricket.

 

[Sanz]

In your original post, you made it seem like beamers are always deliberate. That's why I said what I said. If that's not what you meant, my bad.

I said in 'International Cricket' and which obviously is an opinion that is formed after watching various bowlers bowl beamers in the past which I always thought was intentional.

I still think SreeSanth's beamer was deliberate and his two feet No ball confirms it for me.

 

[Sanz]

its pretty hard to keep the discussion up with you after those comments.

I was trying to discuss properly but couldn't do it after this post:-

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1287484&postcount=4065

Hardly anyone is a professional cricketer here and that was totally irrelevant.

I do think it was intentional and as for reason why bowlers seem to end up bowling beamers when they are frustrated, because they are trying alot more harder and trying to bowl faster than they normally do and which ends up with them losing control of the ball and bowling beamers.

That's a good explanation and I did think about that too, but when they lose control why does the ball almost always end up aiming the head/upper body of the batsmen ? Why doesn't it go any wider ?

 

[adharcric]

When I questioned the direction, it was basically not about the height, It is about why most of the times beamers are pointed towards batsman's head and not wide on either side of the wicket.

Beamers and bouncers are usually a result of the ball coming out too early or too late. For beamers, that usually happens because the bowler strives for too much pace. Even otherwise, you can get the release wrong - look at how many yorkers turn into full tosses in international cricket. The up-and-down grip and resulting horizontal direction should not change in either case. From my experience with my own and others' bowling, beamers don't really involve a change in horizontal direction unless you really get it wrong.

 

[adharcric]

Having a good enough position is not an excuse to bowl a beamer. It is illegal and If the bowler bowls it intentionaly or otherwise, he should be taken out of attack immediately and dropped from the next game. If he does it again in another match, he should get 5 match ban, if he does it again then year ban. There is no room for such acts in cricket.

Suppose a batsman is trying to get into his crease and the mid-on fielder fires in a throw and nails the batsman above the chest. Would you ban him for the next match?

 

[Sanz]

Suppose a batsman is trying to get into his crease and the mid-on fielder fires in a throw and nails the batsman above the chest. Would you ban him for the next match?

Totally irrelevant to this discussion. Fielders almost never claim that the ball slipped out of their hands and the batsmen know it very well that the fielder is aiming at the stumps.

In any case, it is pretty easy to know the intent of the fielders. If the batsman is not trying to take a single and inside his crease and the fielder still aims at the batsman's chest, then yes, He should be thrown into a jail for attempt to murder.

 

[Sanz]

Beamers and bouncers are usually a result of the ball coming out too early or too late. For beamers, that usually happens because the bowler strives for too much pace. Even otherwise, you can get the release wrong - look at how many yorkers turn into full tosses in international cricket. The up-and-down grip and resulting horizontal direction should not change in either case. From my experience with my own and others' bowling, beamers don't really involve a change in horizontal direction unless you really get it wrong.

Waqar's beamer to Symonds in 2003 WC.
Akhtar's b eamer to Dhoni, and countless others
Lee's beamer to Tresco, mccullum, Razzaq etc

I know beamers can be accident, but in international cricket they are intentional more often than not. Here is an article on beamers written in 2005 after Brett Lee's beaming deliveries :-

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Peter...wling-beanballs/2005/02/27/1109439454031.html

 

[adharcric]

Totally irrelevant to this discussion. Fielders almost never claim that the ball slipped out of their hands and the batsmen know it very well that the fielder is aiming at the stumps.

In both cases, the guy with the ball can release the ball incorrectly and the ball goes off target as a result. Hardly irrelevant.

In any case, it is pretty easy to know the intent of the fielders. If the batsman is not trying to take a single and inside his crease and the fielder still aims at the batsman's chest, then yes, He should be thrown into a jail for attempt to murder.

Now that would be interesting.

 

[adharcric]

Waqar's beamer to Symonds in 2003 WC.
Akhtar's b eamer to Dhoni, and countless others
Lee's beamer to Tresco, mccullum, Razzaq etc

I know beamers can be accident, but in international cricket they are intentional more often than not. Here is an article on beamers written in 2005 after Brett Lee's beaming deliveries :-

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Peter...wling-beanballs/2005/02/27/1109439454031.html

In international cricket, I have seen beamers that look intentional as well as those that look accidental. You have mentioned some beamers but the only reason they made the news is because they looked intentional. There have been other beamers as well, but the accidental ones usually get forgotten. Sreesanth's beamer may have been intentional but it looked accidental to me. That's all I can say on the matter. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Anil]

If it is at hip/abdomen height, it is not a beamer. Thanks for the cricket lesson though.

any full-toss above the waist is considered a beamer from what i understand...

 

[silentstriker]

Guys, please refrain from insulting other members. Argue against the post, not the poster.