***Official*** Super Series

[Deja moo]

BTW people, this should be interesting: Umpire Darrell Hair to officiate in the second and third One Dayer..... and Murali will most probably be playing :-0 . If I'm not mistaken, its a whole 11 years since their first joint production (pun unintended)

 

[Slow Love™]

There are back foot no balls!??

It's the way no-balls used to be called. It was superceded by the front foot law some 40 years ago, 'cause bowlers were dragging their back foot past the line during the last bit of the delivery stride.

The point being, the technology doesn't have to worry about what's going on with the back foot, and neither does the umpire.

 

[dinu23]

Mr. Hair to stand in the 2,3 games. oh boy, should be interesting.

 

[greg]

It's the way no-balls used to be called. It was superceded by the front foot law some 40 years ago, 'cause bowlers were dragging their back foot past the line during the last bit of the delivery stride.

The point being, the technology doesn't have to worry about what's going on with the back foot, and neither does the umpire.

No you are mistaken, the back foot rule still exists. Your back foot is not allowed to cross the return crease in delivery. It is a problem which can particularly afflict spinners from time to time (like I said if the umpires had been concentrating they would have picked up on a whole load bowled by Warne in the last series.)

Or, quoting directly from Law 24 (5)

5. Fair delivery - the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(i) the bowler's back foot must land within and not touching the return crease.
(ii) the bowler's front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised, behind the popping crease.
If the umpire at the bowler's end is not satisfied that both these conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

 

[superkingdave]

So World XI will play Victoria in a warm up game on 2 October, apparently its free as well, anyone going?

 

[Slow Love™]

No you are mistaken, the back foot rule still exists. Your back foot is not allowed to cross the return crease in delivery. It is a problem which can particularly afflict spinners from time to time (like I said if the umpires had been concentrating they would have picked up on a whole load bowled by Warne in the last series.)

Or, quoting directly from Law 24 (5)

5. Fair delivery - the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(i) the bowler's back foot must land within and not touching the return crease.
(ii) the bowler's front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised, behind the popping crease.
If the umpire at the bowler's end is not satisfied that both these conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

Ah, fair enough, good spotting. Although that's not "the back foot rule" I was speaking of, in the sense of how the rule for no-balls used to exist before the front-foot law was enacted.

It's obvious however that it's no longer policed. My question is serious though, because I can't remember seeing one called. When did you last see it happen?

Either way, I hardly think it'll get in the way of no-ball calls being transferred to the third umpire.

 

[greg]

Ah, fair enough, good spotting. Although that's not "the back foot rule" I was speaking of, in the sense of how the rule for no-balls used to exist before the front-foot law was enacted.

It's obvious however that it's no longer policed. My question is serious though, because I can't remember seeing one called. When did you last see it happen?

Either way, I hardly think it'll get in the way of no-ball calls being transferred to the third umpire.

I remember seeing one or two called in the Ashes. It always annoys me when umpires let bowlers get away with it in test matches, because I always get called in lowly club cricket! ;-)

Anyway my point was that having technology call front foot noballs may lead to better accuracy on that aspect of the game, but that won't mean that umpires won't have to watch the bowler's feet anymore. (they will just get a bit more time, which is the argument people like Richie Benaud always put in favour of the old noball law)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Mr. Hair to stand in the 2,3 games. oh boy, should be interesting.

Don't see what difference it will make really. Even if he wanted to call Murali again (which I doubt he would given he was practically crucified for it last time), he couldn't as the rules have been changed and all he can do is report Murali to the match referee.

 

[greg]

Don't see what difference it will make really. Even if he wanted to call Murali again (which I doubt he would given he was practically crucified for it last time), he couldn't as the rules have been changed and all he can do is report Murali to the match referee.

I don't think that's actually true. The umpire still has the discretion to call a bowler if he wants.

 

[Adamc]

So World XI will play Victoria in a warm up game on 2 October, apparently its free as well, anyone going?

They are? Have you got a link, 'cause I can't find anything about it on cricinfo.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think that's actually true. The umpire still has the discretion to call a bowler if he wants.

I thought that had been changed, but even if it hasn't, we'll never see another bowler called unless the 15 degrees nonsense is changed to something that can be measured by the umpire. Otherwise, if an umpire called, the bowler went and did the tests and wasn't over the limit, their career would probably be over. Think of what Hair went through and imagine it 10 times worse.

 

[greg]

I thought that had been changed, but even if it hasn't, we'll never see another bowler called unless the 15 degrees nonsense is changed to something that can be measured by the umpire. Otherwise, if an umpire called, the bowler went and did the tests and wasn't over the limit, their career would probably be over. Think of what Hair went through and imagine it 10 times worse.

I think the point is that possible repeated transgressions, that are probably a fault in the bowler's action, will be dealt with through the "referral" system. If however it becomes obvious that a bowler, for whatever reason, suddenly starts changing his action and clearly throwing the ball then the umpire is justified in applying the old rule.

The fault, of course, with the referrals process is that it can not account for DELIBERATE cheating by a bowler since he is under no obligation to repeat the same action when being tested.

 

[superkingdave]

They are? Have you got a link, 'cause I can't find anything about it on cricinfo.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/victoria-to-tackle-the-world-xi/2005/09/22/1126982184377.html

VICTORIA will play the World XI one-day team in a practice match next month at Junction Oval, giving cricket fans the rare chance to see international superstars Brian Lara, Andrew Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen and Shoaib Akhtar in action for free.

 

[Adamc]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/victoria-to-tackle-the-world-xi/2005/09/22/1126982184377.html

Wow... pity I don't live there.

 

[Jono]

YES! I'm totally going for that.

Wow I'm going to be at a lot of cricket games this October

 

[marc71178]

The point being, the technology doesn't have to worry about what's going on with the back foot, and neither does the umpire.

Except a 3rd umpire could easily adjudicate on both anyway.

It would then mean the field umpire is concentrating on the batsman's end.

Add in the stump earpieces and I think there'd be far less controversy with no delays in play.

 

[Slow Love™]

I remember seeing one or two called in the Ashes. It always annoys me when umpires let bowlers get away with it in test matches, because I always get called in lowly club cricket! ;-)

Anyway my point was that having technology call front foot noballs may lead to better accuracy on that aspect of the game, but that won't mean that umpires won't have to watch the bowler's feet anymore. (they will just get a bit more time, which is the argument people like Richie Benaud always put in favour of the old noball law)

You mean there were a few called in the Ashes just played? I would have thought this would have resulted in some attention in the coverage, 'cause practically every noball got a replay... Anyhow, I guess it's just not considered a priority in the scheme of things, and it's called very rarely.

Yeah, I don't think Richie's ever shut up about his dislike of the front-foot law. Returning to the back-foot law also offers an opportunity for the batsman to hear the call earlier and adjust his shot accordingly. Actually, one solution could be to return to the old law, and then have the third umpire handle them - in which case the field umpire can forget about watching the feet. Alternatively, it might still be possible for the tv umpire to handle both the return crease and the front foot if necessary.

 

[Slow Love™]

Except a 3rd umpire could easily adjudicate on both anyway.

It would then mean the field umpire is concentrating on the batsman's end.

Add in the stump earpieces and I think there'd be far less controversy with no delays in play.

I dunno how easy it would be to adjudicate on both, but yeah, presuming they could, that would free up the field umpires even more. No argument from me there.

 

[venomous]

Once agaian Sunial Gavaskar and co. showed stupidity by selecting Inzy in only Test matches...i really don't get this selection committe. Is Dravid , Gayle and Gibbs are better One day players than Inzi..hah! how stupid that is?? and I am not whinning, it's just my feeling agaisnt irrational selectors!

 

[JASON]

Dravid's inclusion in the ODI side is definitely confounding, considering his style of batting !! (Normally stone walling type of long innings and often in ODI's this has led to the batsman at the other end being under even greater pressure !!)

The luckiest guy in the World XI is definitely Mark Boucher !!

But the even the World XI coach doesn't want this Team to win , so these selections hardly matter !!