camberleycricket.com
Discussion Forums
 
< Forum Topics
     No Balls

Adam
15/03/2010 11:26:50
There was some discussion about no balls, bouncers in bad light etc. Any thoughts here please.
Difficult to legislate on but any ideas welcome.
Jeremy
15/03/2010 12:11:55
The safety players is obviously extremely important.
I would suggest that if an umpire feels that the bowling is dangerous, that a warning be given to the bowler (and the captain?). A subsequent dangerous delivery would be called a no ball. Persistent dangerous bowling would have to result in removal from the bowling attack (although I'm sure it wouldn't ever come to this).
Anonymous
15/03/2010 13:33:16
I'd suggest sticking vaguely at least to the rules of the game. If we are going to tweak those rules then the new ones should be laid down in writing before the new season starts or we risk potential bad feeling between the teams which would be unforgivable in such a small league.
Adam
15/03/2010 13:35:10
It is hard to say what is dangerous though, we had an incident where the bowler was bowling short due to his enthusiasm and lack of skill rather than any sort of aggression, and the batsman did not even have a helmet on. May be only one bouncer over shoulder height an over should be the rule, and any more are no balls with a fee hit (no catch, lbw or bowled) on the next one as well.
Jeremy
15/03/2010 15:25:24
Most of us don't wear or even own helmets and wouldn't really want to have to buy them.
On that basis I wouldn't want to see any bouncers towards shoulder height or higher whether deliberate or accidental.
Adam
15/03/2010 15:33:07
Fair enough, then maybe it should be a no ball if it is over chest height at normal stance, otherwise no ball and free hit. (I quite enjoy trying to hook a shortish ball but I do have a helmet)
Russ
15/03/2010 16:30:18
I personally don't want to see any rule tweaks as it is then open to more interpretation than at the moment. I would much prefer the umpires to take charge of the situation on it's merits.
If the umpire feels that even the first short-pitched ball is dangerous, they should call it as they see it.
I agree that deliberate short-pitched bowling is no good for our league and should be discouraged. It rarely yields wickets anyway at our level IMO.
I kind of understand where you're coming from about helmets, as I own one, but I don't really like wearing it except in the nets. However, I also accept that if I get hit in the chops by an accidental bouncer/full toss and I'm not wearing it, it's my fault.
Rob
29/03/2010 13:46:19
I agree with Jeremy that we shouldn't allow any short-pitched bowling in our league - we all play this game for fun and at our level most of us don't have the equipment (or skill) to deal with that type of bowling meaning that the risk of injury is too great. I've only raised this point for discussion as the incident that occurred last year caused some bad feeling from some members of my team - which we should ensure doesn't happen again. I think the incident occurred because of an enthusiastic bowler, the fact that the pitch actually had some bounce (for once) & because the umpiring wasn't strong enough. As captains, we need to ensure that all our players are aware of the no-ball rules and of their powers as an umpire to warn the bowler & captain (and ultimately to remove a bowler from the attack) if they feel that the bowling is dangerous. This last point is the key - if the umpire feels that any ball is dangerous to the batsman then they should call it as a no-ball & warn the bowler, etc. - e.g. fast bowling in poor light. To clarify - the normal rules for judging a no-ball on length should be:
a) any ball that reaches the batsman, when standing at the crease, above waist-height without bouncing first,
b) any ball that reaches the batsman at or above his shoulder height.
Anonymous
03/10/2012 06:44:36
This introduces a pleasingly raitnoal point of view.






Created using Lotus Notes by Adam Foster