Does the Test cricket no-ball rule need a reform?

[MenInG]

Jasprit Bumrah's ten-ball barrage of James Anderson showed that a one-run penalty and the chance to bowl another bouncer was no deterrent at all.

Whilst Bumrah was totally within his rights and did nothing wrong by using the rules as they stand, surely other bowlers around the world would have watched this with interest and we could see more of this in Tests.

Could free hits for no-balls have stopped Jasprit Bumrah's attack on James Anderson? Persisent short-pitched bowling is fair enough — but bowlers should not be allowed to take advantage of illegally overstepping

Your views.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

No change needed. This was a one off instance.

 

[MenInG]

No change needed. This was a one off instance.

But why shouldnt other bowlers also do this? Will it not happen again in THIS series also?

 

[mastimasti]

I've actually always thought a punishment for no-balls should be included in test cricket too, possibly a free-hit, or in the above example, a fine. a No-ball should not be a purposeful tactic.

 

[Mesozoic]

1. No bowler likes to give away free runs off his own bowling and let go off a chance of him picking up a wicket. That too when the opponent had already taken a crucial first innings lead.

2. No bowler can bowl deliberate noballs without appearing extremely suspicious with the distance between his heel and the popping crease.

Bumrah's noballs were all relatively marginal.

3. Bumrah had already bowled heaps of noballs earlier this series so it was most likely not a one time thing and more of him not getting a control over his runup especially at the time of delivery.

 

[ak619]

I have seen Bumrah bowl 3 no balls in an over in the IPL, where obviously the penalty for it is much higher. No balls have been a perennial problem for Bumrah. CT Final, anyone?

The unapologetic insinuation of OP that this was deliberate on the bowler's part is quite disgraceful, to say the least.

We're talking about Bumrah here, folks. Not Amir. His integrity cannot under question for merely bowling no balls.

 

[Varun]

Keep the free hits to the hit and giggle stuff.

Maybe in tests a penalty could be an increasing number of penalty runs for each no-ball. If you bowl 1, then it's 1 run. But if you bowl a second, it's 2 runs for that instance, and so on.

 

[MenInG]

I have seen Bumrah bowl 3 no balls in an over in the IPL, where obviously the penalty for it is much higher. No balls have been a perennial problem for Bumrah. CT Final, anyone?

The unapologetic insinuation of OP that this was deliberate on the bowler's part is quite disgraceful, to say the least.

We're talking about Bumrah here, folks. Not Amir. His integrity cannot under question for merely bowling no balls.

Why because he is from India so he is beyond reproach?

The question is simple - Anything spoken against an Indian player does not need to be treated like an attack on the nation so keep your "insinuations" to yourself.

Question is simple and it's not about Bumrah but about no-balls in general.

Stick to that only - any other attempts to make this into an India/Pakistan thing will not be tolerated.

 

[street cricketer]

Bumrah's no balls were no balls by millimetres. Unless Bumrah has mastered the art of bowling inch perfect no balls, it's very hard to do that.

Besides, two of Bumrah's no balls were yorkers. What's the point of bowling a yorker that's a no ball..

I think the rules are fine as it is.

 

[Varun]

Bumrah's no balls were no balls by millimetres. Unless Bumrah has mastered the art of bowling inch perfect no balls, it's very hard to do that.

Not everybody is as good as Asif.

 

[ak619]

Why because he is from India so he is beyond reproach?

The question is simple - Anything spoken against an Indian player does not need to be treated like an attack on the nation so keep your "insinuations" to yourself.

Question is simple and it's not about Bumrah but about no-balls in general.

Stick to that only - any other attempts to make this into an India/Pakistan thing will not be tolerated.

No. He is not beyond reproach, regardless his nationality.

But given his squeaky clean record and obvious problem with no-balls, you need to back up your insinuations with at least a shred of evidence. Otherwise what you're doing is nothing but targeted attacks.

Also, coming back now and trying to imply and pretend that this thread is "not about Bumrah" after clearly insinuating in OP that Bumrah was deliberately bowling no balls - I'm not buying that argument. And I doubt anyone else will.

Not trying to make this an IND-PAK thread. Just giving an example of where these kind of insinuations would be valid and where it would require some evidence to be of any value.

 

[Titan24]

Contrary to what some are saying, few of his no balls were huge (Pic added below for reference which is well over millimetres, I saw one even bigger than this but couldn’t find a pic).



Bumrah is not being targeted here rather a rule is being discussed. You really don’t want a situation where a fast bowler keeps on bowling no balls against a tailender in an effort to send a message across and give him bruises or maybe even injure the tailender. You make 6 balls over into an 11,12 one to leash out your aggression with only a penalty of 4-5 runs.

Again before anyone jumps Bumrah’s intentions are not being discussed but, I personally haven’t come across many occasions where so many noballs bouncers were bowled at a tailender (No 11 batsman). Happy to be stand corrected if others have few such references. In the end rather than targeting or guessing intentions, all that is being said is that it is something which can be negatively used on occasions and maybe something to look at.

 

[redmaverik84]

Bumrah clearly had an off day when it came to no balls. He bowled around 13 and the rest of them around 4. So discounting the 4 he bowled in what would be his last over, there was nothing in it to make it seem intentional. Moreover, the intent was not to just bowl bouncers and hurt him, he got him on the backfoot and nearly slipped in a yorker similar to the first test.

 

[MenInG]

No. He is not beyond reproach, regardless his nationality.

But given his squeaky clean record and obvious problem with no-balls, you need to back up your insinuations with at least a shred of evidence. Otherwise what you're doing is nothing but targeted attacks.

Also, coming back now and trying to imply and pretend that this thread is "not about Bumrah" after clearly insinuating in OP that Bumrah was deliberately bowling no balls - I'm not buying that argument. And I doubt anyone else will.

Not trying to make this an IND-PAK thread. Just giving an example of where these kind of insinuations would be valid and where it would require some evidence to be of any value.

I used Bumrah's example because he bowled those no-balls

Like I said, read post #1 and like everyone else, address the topic.

Anymore nonsensical posts will be deleted.

 

[ak619]

Contrary to what some are saying, few of his no balls were huge (Pic added below for reference which is well over millimetres, I saw one even bigger than this but couldn’t find a pic).

View attachment 111391

Bumrah is not being targeted here rather a rule is being discussed. You really don’t want a situation where a fast bowler keeps on bowling no balls against a tailender in an effort to send a message across and give him bruises or maybe even injure the tailender. You make 6 balls over into an 11,12 one to leash out your aggression with only a penalty of 4-5 runs.

Again before anyone jumps Bumrah’s intentions are not being discussed but, I personally haven’t come across many occasions where so many noballs bouncers were bowled at a tailender (No 11 batsman). Happy to be stand corrected if others have few such references. In the end rather than targeting or guessing intentions, all that is being said is that it is something which can be negatively used on occasions and maybe something to look at.

As a poster have said, he also bowled no balls that were millimeters over the line. Were those also deliberate? He also bowled Yorkers that were no balls. What was the plan there? Yorkers can't physically hurt or intimidate a batsman. What is can do is get them out, especially Anderson who has already been out on yorkers twice in this series.

You cannot pick and choose from the evidence pile to fit a narrative. If the narrative doesn't align with the entire set of evidence, then ipso facto the narrative is wrong.

 

[redmaverik84]

Contrary to what some are saying, few of his no balls were huge (Pic added below for reference which is well over millimetres, I saw one even bigger than this but couldn’t find a pic).

View attachment 111391

Bumrah is not being targeted here rather a rule is being discussed. You really don’t want a situation where a fast bowler keeps on bowling no balls against a tailender in an effort to send a message across and give him bruises or maybe even injure the tailender. You make 6 balls over into an 11,12 one to leash out your aggression with only a penalty of 4-5 runs.

Again before anyone jumps Bumrah’s intentions are not being discussed but, I personally haven’t come across many occasions where so many noballs bouncers were bowled at a tailender (No 11 batsman). Happy to be stand corrected if others have few such references. In the end rather than targeting or guessing intentions, all that is being said is that it is something which can be negatively used on occasions and maybe something to look at.

You missed Brett Lee bowling to Ntini a decade back. It was clearly bowled with the intent to hit and injure the batsman and the umpire had to no ball him or warn him about it ( dont remember which). Am sure there have been more..

 

[MenInG]

Contrary to what some are saying, few of his no balls were huge (Pic added below for reference which is well over millimetres, I saw one even bigger than this but couldn’t find a pic).

View attachment 111391

Bumrah is not being targeted here rather a rule is being discussed. You really don’t want a situation where a fast bowler keeps on bowling no balls against a tailender in an effort to send a message across and give him bruises or maybe even injure the tailender. You make 6 balls over into an 11,12 one to leash out your aggression with only a penalty of 4-5 runs.

Again before anyone jumps Bumrah’s intentions are not being discussed but, I personally haven’t come across many occasions where so many noballs bouncers were bowled at a tailender (No 11 batsman). Happy to be stand corrected if others have few such references. In the end rather than targeting or guessing intentions, all that is being said is that it is something which can be negatively used on occasions and maybe something to look at.

Thanks [MENTION=142432]Titan24[/MENTION]

Thanks for clarifying this further for some of our friends who only post on PP when they read the word India.

 

[redmaverik84]

On that note, I hope this is a one off scenario. The umpires should be well within his rights to warn him or stop him from bowling for dangerous bowling. But this will be used a tactic to rile up Anderson, of that am sure.

 

[MenInG]

You missed Brett Lee bowling to Ntini a decade back. It was clearly bowled with the intent to hit and injure the batsman and the umpire had to no ball him or warn him about it ( dont remember which). Am sure there have been more..

So yes, all have been wrong and something needs to be done about it.

 

[street cricketer]

Contrary to what some are saying, few of his no balls were huge (Pic added below for reference which is well over millimetres, I saw one even bigger than this but couldn’t find a pic).

View attachment 111391

Bumrah is not being targeted here rather a rule is being discussed. You really don’t want a situation where a fast bowler keeps on bowling no balls against a tailender in an effort to send a message across and give him bruises or maybe even injure the tailender. You make 6 balls over into an 11,12 one to leash out your aggression with only a penalty of 4-5 runs.

Again before anyone jumps Bumrah’s intentions are not being discussed but, I personally haven’t come across many occasions where so many noballs bouncers were bowled at a tailender (No 11 batsman). Happy to be stand corrected if others have few such references. In the end rather than targeting or guessing intentions, all that is being said is that it is something which can be negatively used on occasions and maybe something to look at.

Bumrah bowled 4 no balls totally in that over. Of those, two were yorkers. One was short and outside the off stump. Only one no ball was short and directed at Anderson.

What's the point of bowling no ball yorkers? Maybe, just maybe, Bumrah seems to have a no ball issue that we're ignoring. I mean, he bowled 10 no balls in the first test too and he bowled no balls in the 2nd innings of the 2nd test as well. I think Bumrah also bowled a crucial no ball in a final I can't remember!

 

[ak619]

Contrary to what some are saying, few of his no balls were huge (Pic added below for reference which is well over millimetres, I saw one even bigger than this but couldn’t find a pic).

View attachment 111391

Bumrah is not being targeted here rather a rule is being discussed. You really don’t want a situation where a fast bowler keeps on bowling no balls against a tailender in an effort to send a message across and give him bruises or maybe even injure the tailender. You make 6 balls over into an 11,12 one to leash out your aggression with only a penalty of 4-5 runs.

Again before anyone jumps Bumrah’s intentions are not being discussed but, I personally haven’t come across many occasions where so many noballs bouncers were bowled at a tailender (No 11 batsman). Happy to be stand corrected if others have few such references. In the end rather than targeting or guessing intentions, all that is being said is that it is something which can be negatively used on occasions and maybe something to look at.

Answering your point on not seeing so many no balls bowled before.

Posting a link below to match report from an IPL KO where Bunrah bowler 2 no balls in the final over.

https://m.rediff.com/cricket/report/ipl2021-mi-dc-turning-point-bumrah-no-balls-cost-mi/20210421.htm

I have personally seen a league match in IPL where he bowled 3 no balls in an over. Can't find the scorecard for that match. Maybe someone else can post the link?

 

[Titan24]

[MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION] Burmah definitely has no ball issues and his past track record back your statement as well. However, the focus of thread is about the no ball rule in tests and not regarding the intentions of Bumrah or that particular event, yes that event raised some questions regarding the rule. [MENTION=150140]ak619[/MENTION] thanks for sharing the examples especially the ones from international cricket.

The point being that current no ball rule has a roam to be used in an unsporting manner where an over against a tailender can be prolonged to tame him down or even worse and with the penalty of only 3-4 runs depending upon how many extra balls.

Lets move the debate away from Bumrah as he is not the focus of debate rather was just the initiating point of debate with his no balls against Anderson. Question is does the no ball rule require any changes in test cricket, if yes then how? If no then how and where to define a line especially against bowlers with almost no skills with the bat? Anderson looked in anxiety after every no ball from Bumrah and had body blows multiple time in that short stay. Yes at the end its a professional sport and people should be prepared for what they are going to face but, its never bad idea to have discussion especially regarding rules that can be misused.

 

[Sir Alex]

Why because he is from India so he is beyond reproach?

The question is simple - Anything spoken against an Indian player does not need to be treated like an attack on the nation so keep your "insinuations" to yourself.

Question is simple and it's not about Bumrah but about no-balls in general.

Stick to that only - any other attempts to make this into an India/Pakistan thing will not be tolerated.

Should deliberate attempt be the first recourse in any untoward event ?

Bumrah has to be one insanely genius to bowl such marginal no balls btw. And Kohli to be unKohli to allow such thing- which doesn't result in runs and more importantly could result in a wicket and won't count.

BTW do you think Jadeja's no ball to Moeen was also deliberate?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Nothing wrong with the rule. The penalties are fine. Why only overstepping. I remember a frustrated Akhtar would bowl multiple no balls for height just to get under the batsmen s skin . Occasionally a deliberate beamer too.

 

[MenInG]

Should deliberate attempt be the first recourse in any untoward event ?

Bumrah has to be one insanely genius to bowl such marginal no balls btw. And Kohli to be unKohli to allow such thing- which doesn't result in runs and more importantly could result in a wicket and won't count.

BTW do you think Jadeja's no ball to Moeen was also deliberate?

It might have been but chances of hurting Moeen as a spin bowler is a little remote.

Like I said before, this whole thing of Indians being beyond reproach is laughable.

The point isnt about Bumrah but about the rule itself.

Suggest you direct your energies to that only.

 

[ak619]

[MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION] Burmah definitely has no ball issues and his past track record back your statement as well. However, the focus of thread is about the no ball rule in tests and not regarding the intentions of Bumrah or that particular event, yes that event raised some questions regarding the rule. [MENTION=150140]ak619[/MENTION] thanks for sharing the examples especially the ones from international cricket.

The point being that current no ball rule has a roam to be used in an unsporting manner where an over against a tailender can be prolonged to tame him down or even worse and with the penalty of only 3-4 runs depending upon how many extra balls.

Lets move the debate away from Bumrah as he is not the focus of debate rather was just the initiating point of debate with his no balls against Anderson. Question is does the no ball rule require any changes in test cricket, if yes then how? If no then how and where to define a line especially against bowlers with almost no skills with the bat? Anderson looked in anxiety after every no ball from Bumrah and had body blows multiple time in that short stay. Yes at the end its a professional sport and people should be prepared for what they are going to face but, its never bad idea to have discussion especially regarding rules that can be misused.

I think there already is a law addressing such a scenario, no?

Law 41.6.1 Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries.

So the umpire has the authority to warn the bowler and if he doesn't stop can take him off the attack permanently.

This law would apply regardless of the multiple no-balls issue that compounded this participant Bumrah Anderson scenario.

So I don't think any more rules or laws are necessary. Cricket already has too many complicated rules and laws. I don't think adding to that list will help the game. Would love to hear your take on this [MENTION=142432]Titan24[/MENTION]

 

[Robert]

Bumrah oversteps a lot.

England think he did it on purpose to rough up Anderson but why? - couldn’t he just carry on bowling bouncers in the next over? Seems unlikely to me.

If a tailender is getting roughed up, the umpire has the power to stop it.

 

[street cricketer]

[MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION] Burmah definitely has no ball issues and his past track record back your statement as well. However, the focus of thread is about the no ball rule in tests and not regarding the intentions of Bumrah or that particular event, yes that event raised some questions regarding the rule. [MENTION=150140]ak619[/MENTION] thanks for sharing the examples especially the ones from international cricket.

The point being that current no ball rule has a roam to be used in an unsporting manner where an over against a tailender can be prolonged to tame him down or even worse and with the penalty of only 3-4 runs depending upon how many extra balls.

Lets move the debate away from Bumrah as he is not the focus of debate rather was just the initiating point of debate with his no balls against Anderson. Question is does the no ball rule require any changes in test cricket, if yes then how? If no then how and where to define a line especially against bowlers with almost no skills with the bat? Anderson looked in anxiety after every no ball from Bumrah and had body blows multiple time in that short stay. Yes at the end its a professional sport and people should be prepared for what they are going to face but, its never bad idea to have discussion especially regarding rules that can be misused.

There already exists a law in cricket which enables the umpire to stop deliberate intimidatory bowling against a batsman. But it's really a grey area in cricket. What constitutes "intimidatory bowling" is debatable. Is short pitched bowling directed at the arm pits intimidatory bowling.. In that case, that is the stock delivery of Wagner. Or is the rule to protect tailenders against short pitched bowling.. Australia employed bodyline bowling against England tailenders in the 2017/18 Ashes in Australia. They did the same against India in the last Border Gavaskar series and Shami fell as a casualty to that tactic - whose forearm got fractured to a vicious short ball and was consequently ruled out of the series.

At the same time, it doesn't always work either. In the same series, the Australian quicks bowled about a session of short pitched bowling at Thakur and Sundar at the Gabba, trying to scare them into giving their wickets. Both batsmen got in instead and combined together to make a match winning partnership in the end, when simply bowling in the channel would've reaped better rewards.

Even in this match, England wasted a golden opportunity to win the match when Wood was brought into the attack (despite a dodgy shoulder) to give "payback" to Bumrah for what he did to Anderson. Our tailenders are absolute bunnies. If you compiled a team of all the tailenders in world cricket, our quicks would be the tailenders of that Tailenders XI. I mean, Bumrah and Shami average under 4 and 8. If they had bowled in the channel like they did to Pant, Bumrah would've nicked to the keeper in 3 balls. But they let their bruised ego get the better of themselves and employed a ridiculous field of having deep fielders and bowling short deliveries aimed at Bumrah to teach him a lesson. What happened was that that strategy turned the game on its head and England went from being favourites to win the test to battling for their lives in the last two sessions in the span of an hour.

So I don't really think that strategy is particularly useful and there is no need to change the laws as they're now. Because, if you keep bowling extras, you'll neither get the last wicket and also the extras keep getting added to the total you have to chase.

 

[Titan24]

I think there already is a law addressing such a scenario, no?

Law 41.6.1 Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries.

So the umpire has the authority to warn the bowler and if he doesn't stop can take him off the attack permanently.

This law would apply regardless of the multiple no-balls issue that compounded this participant Bumrah Anderson scenario.

So I don't think any more rules or laws are necessary. Cricket already has too many complicated rules and laws. I don't think adding to that list will help the game. Would love to hear your take on this [MENTION=142432]Titan24[/MENTION]

Thats a fair point. I think the law 41.6.1 is rarely used in cricket (I dont remember it being used) however, as you mentioned that the law indeed exists and umpire based upon his judgement possibly could have come into play during that over especially when the over got further extended and those no balls had one or two short ones as well.

 

[jeetu]

Bumrah oversteps a lot.

England think he did it on purpose to rough up Anderson but why? - couldn’t he just carry on bowling bouncers in the next over? Seems unlikely to me.

If a tailender is getting roughed up, the umpire has the power to stop it.

Umpires needs to be proactive in this area. Cricket doesn't need another tragedy on pitch.
There are times when umpire has warned bowlers in the past. Marshall was warned during 1983 WC final against Sandhu. Akram was too warned in past when he bowled short in poor lighting condition. There should be plenty more such instances.
Umpires seems more relaxed now because of protective gear used by batsman.

 

[Titan24]

Jasprit Bumrah Was Bowling No-Ball After No-Ball, Wasn't Trying to Get Me Out: James Anderson

England pacer James Anderson recalled his duel with Jasprit Bumrah in the Lord’s Test against India, saying he felt the Indian fast bowler was not trying to get him out. Bumrah bowled a barrage of short balls in a 10-ball over filled with no-balls and quick bouncers aimed at the body, in a bid to rough up Anderson who has an issue with the short ball. Anderson survived the over, but got out to Mohammed Siraj at the other end.

“I got caught off guard a little bit because all the batters coming in were saying how slow the pitch was. Banged in short; it was really slow. When I came out to bat, Joe said Bumrah was not bowling as quick as he normally does.

“And then, the first ball was 90 miles an hour and on the money, wasn’t it? And it felt like, I haven’t felt like this ever in my career. I felt he wasn’t trying to get me out,” James Anderson said on the Tailenders Podcast.

“I felt he wasn’t trying to get me out. He bowled an over, maybe 10, 11, 12 balls. He was bowling no-ball after no-ball, bowling short. I think he bowled two on the stumps which I managed to dig out. So for me, it was just about trying to survive that and get Joe back on strike."

England tried to take revenge when Bumrah batted, by bringing on Mark Wood to bowl short balls at pace. However, Bumrah and Mohammed Shami added a crucial ninth wicket stand to stretch India’s lead. Anderson said it was a wrong decision by captain Joe Root.

“When Joe touched on getting a few things wrong, I think, potentially, when Bumrah came in, he brought Mark Wood on and took me off. That’s the sort of thing he is talking about getting the emotion get the better of him. That was a sort of – trying for him to have a taste of his own medicine type of thing, rather than trying to get him out.

“You could just keep me on and normally see if he plays any big shot or anything like that, whereas he went with Mark Wood straightaway."

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/n...n-4121222.html

 

[Sir Alex]

For a legend, he is really a crybaby.

 

[OMB]

For a legend, he is really a crybaby.

Exactly. and I find it very odd that he mentions Root's mistakes. Root may have admitted it but there was no need to keep highlighting and create friction in the locker room.

 

[MenInG]

Obviously in practice but ...