If a batsman is bowled on a free-hit, should they still be allowed to run?

[hamzie]

seems a bit ridiculous of a rule

==================================

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Same for all teams but the rule regarding a ball that hits the stumps off a free hit and the batter is allowed to run byes needs to be looked at the by ICC <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/T20WorldCup?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#T20WorldCup</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INDvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INDvPAK</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1584156547432689664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Firebat]

5 from 3 needed, Nawaz clean bowls Kohli on a free hit, the ball ricochets off the stumps past the keeper and they run 3.

Shades of Ben Stokes WC 2019 the amount of luck in that.

 

[Saurav]

that's the whole point of free hit isnt it.

 

[SamNJ]

I think it will require considerable rule changes. If they are not allowed to run on bowled they won't be allowed to run on catch too.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

What's the use of free hit then? Just like batsmen are allowed to take runs after getting caught, they are allowed to take runs after getting bowled too. This one is a non-issue.

 

[angrypathan]

Yes

 

[adzzy786]

The rule is if they get bowled they are not eligible to run.

 

[Major]

you cant have a dead ball, than the purpose of free hit ends there.

Runs should count if it hits the wickets.

issue isnt the dead ball, its whether the ball itself was no ball or not

 

[Maliq_Mudasir]

that's the whole point of free hit isnt it.

That's unfair for the bowler, if he hits the wicket the ball should be called dead with a dot ball.

Imagine if 1 run is need of last ball and it is a free hit, batter just backs away to let ball hit the stump and run for a single.

Above scenario makes it laughable rule. If bowler hits the stump, he deserves credit of bowling a good ball.

 

[cricketfan11]

If a batsman skies a shot on a free hit, and a fielder catches the ball but the batsmen have run a single - i thought that still means the batting team gets the run. So it's the same principle isn't it. Unfair rule but I think it was legal. That Nawaz no-ball is a bigger issue

 

[Saurav]

That's unfair for the bowler, if he hits the wicket the ball should be called dead with a dot ball.

Imagine if 1 run is need of last ball and it is a free hit, batter just backs away to let ball hit the stump and run for a single.

Above scenario makes it laughable rule. If bowler hits the stump, he deserves credit of bowling a good ball.

good bowl doesnt matter on a free hit. Same way caught out isnt considered.

Only run out is a possibility on a free hit as it should be

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Non issue.

Batsman have been caught off free hit and still ran, so why should bowled be any different?

I know it has hurt Pak in close defeat but objectively there is nothing wrong with this rule.

Free-hit is a ball where you can just get run out, and no other forms of dismissal count.

 

[Ucdkee]

Can someone please share the rule here?

 

[MP2011]

Fair rule.

 

[fitCricFan]

and this is being discussed why!!!!!
just because Pakistan lost runs at a crucial point doesn't mean the rule needs to be questioned or amended. The fielding placement Agoura instead be questioned.

There seems to be a trend that whenever Pakistan looses and specially to India, all this focus on rules etc. comes to the fore. The game was lost in those final 6+ balls, poor over.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

India did nothing wrong and nor did they win because of this, but I think the rule should be ammended.

Being clean bowled with no bat involved and still being allowed to run isn't a free hit, its an all you can eat buffet.

 

[Varun]

When did that other rule get changed where the batsmen don't change ends if one gets out off a skier (with the non-striker making it to the other end)??

Almost cost us the game right there.

 

[ekpakistani]

Rules are simple. Anything that India does is allowed. ICC is making cricket into WWE

 

[fitCricFan]

Being clean bowled with no bat involved and still being allowed to run isn't a free hit, its an all you can eat buffet.

Isn't that the whole point of the penalty ball!!!
The rule clearly states how you can be declared or in a no ball so yeah, it's an "all you can eat buffet". Too bad Pakistan got an upset stomach justl when they were ready to eat.

Look at Nawaz and the field placement.

 

[Bewal Express]

It may be logical but it feels wrong

 

[dildilpak]

India did nothing wrong and nor did they win because of this, but I think the rule should be ammended.

Being clean bowled with no bat involved and still being allowed to run isn't a free hit, its an all you can eat buffet.

Thats because clean bowled is not a valid dismissal for a free hit as per existing rules. So if you cant be dismissed off a clean bowled, then these runs become a regular bye. Dont see the controversy there.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Isn't that the whole point of the penalty ball!!!
The rule clearly states how you can be declared or in a no ball so yeah, it's an "all you can eat buffet". Too bad Pakistan got an upset stomach justl when they were ready to eat.

Look at Nawaz and the field placement.

I am not bitter about this.

We lost fair and square.

I just dont like the idea of batsmen being able to run with the stumps clattered all over the place.

If he had edged onto the stump then I would be more comfortable about it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Thats because clean bowled is not a valid dismissal for a free hit as per existing rules. So if you cant be dismissed off a clean bowled, then these runs become a regular bye. Dont see the controversy there.

There is no controversy.

The rules are the rules.

I am not commenting about Indias win or saying this soured it any way. They won fair and square.

But a separate debate about this rule is needed.

The peak of bowling is sending the stumps clattering. If a bowler does that and the batsman is still able to run then the rule is too much of a punishment to the bowlers imo.

 

[Firebat]

The ICC rule on the dead ball says:

"20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when 20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

20.1.1.2 a boundary is scored. See clause 19.7 (Runs scored from boundaries).

20.1.1.3 a batter is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal."

Because Kohli was not out because the delivery was a free hit, the ball was not dead when the ball hit his stumps.

=============================================================

Feels so unlucky that the ball ricocheted off the stump into the gap for 3, but there you go. All legal.

 

[Zaz]

Shouldve been called a dead ball Umpires bottled it again

 

[shamaan]

It is a stupid rule.

 

[dildilpak]

There is no controversy.

The rules are the rules.

I am not commenting about Indias win or saying this soured it any way. They won fair and square.

But a separate debate about this rule is needed.

The peak of bowling is sending the stumps clattering. If a bowler does that and the batsman is still able to run then the rule is too much of a punishment to the bowlers imo.

Well, then a case should be made that a clean bowled is a fair dismissal on a no ball. And also the point here is how much should a bowler be punished for bowling a no-ball off the previous delivery, which is a fair enough question but something which should have been decided way back when the free hit rules were formed.

 

[fitCricFan]

I am not bitter about this.

We lost fair and square.

I just dont like the idea of batsmen being able to run with the stumps clattered all over the place.

Not trying to be condescending but rules are there for a reason and no one likes them and I am glad we have them. Atleast we have some objectivity. Banter aside, I agree we lost fair and square so let's look forward to the next big one. Hoping the teams meet again in the finals

 

[MP2011]

It is a stupid rule.

It won't have been a stupid rule had you guys won today.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It won't have been a stupid rule had you guys won today.

The stupidity of the rule and Indias victory are two seperate issues.

If Pakistan had been in this situation I would have wanted our batsmen to run three also.

Still it wouldnt stop the rule from being dumb.

 

[MP2011]

The stupidity of the rule and Indias victory are two seperate issues.

If Pakistan had been in this situation I would have wanted our batsmen to run three also.

Still it wouldnt stop the rule from being dumb.

But the apparent stupidity of this rule came into being only when it cost you. And hence my comment.

 

[GreenBee]

I have been playing Cricket from my childhood, and I still don't know many rules. It's a complicated sport and rules won't always make sense if we are at the receiving end.

 

[moghul]

What's the use of free hit then? Just like batsmen are allowed to take runs after getting caught, they are allowed to take runs after getting bowled too. This one is a non-issue.

Batsman connects the ball and hits to a distance to get a run , even to be caught but when he is bowled he does not deserve a run out of it .

 

[DeadlyVenom]

But the apparent stupidity of this rule came into being only when it cost you. And hence my comment.

I've not seen it happen before.

Forget the outcome of the match.

Do you think its a sensible rule that a batsman fails to connect, gets bowled but can still make runs?

 

[PakLFC]

Can't be a free hit if given out so no is the answer. If yes then should be given caught out or LBW too.

 

[Boxer]

Love this rule, long may it live.

 

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

I've not seen it happen before.

Forget the outcome of the match.

Do you think its a sensible rule that a batsman fails to connect, gets bowled but can still make runs?

It is a sensible rule, because the batsman is not out. He can make runs while the ball is still in play.

If the fielding team had fielded the ball, it would've been a dot.

 

[James]

Kohli was bowled, but with the ball racing to third man, he and Dinesh Karthik ran three.

Mohammad Rizwan protested the decision with the umpire, with many suggesting the ball should have been called dead once Kohli was bowled. To figure out the rights and wrongs of this incident, we must consult both the playing conditions and the MCC’s Laws of Cricket, since the ‘Free hit’ rule is only a playing condition, while the laws decree when a ball is dead.

The free hit rule states, “the striker can be dismissed only under the circumstances that apply for a no ball,” and does not mention the dead ball law. The dead ball law does not say that the ball is dead when the wicket is put down, only when the batter is dismissed.

Since Kohli was not dismissed, the ball was not dead. No error.

 

[sweep_shot]

As per current rule, batters can run.

This is why fielders need to be alert.

 

[Saj]

I don't like the rule, it should be a dead ball once the ball hits the stumps.

But as the rule stands, India did nothing wrong.

 

[James]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The ICC rule on the dead ball says:<br><br>"The ball becomes dead when it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler"<br><br>So under the current rules the ball was not dead when it hit the stumps and the batters could run byes<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/T20WorldCup?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#T20WorldCup</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INDvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INDvPAK</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1584180343271469056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[jnaveen1980]

I don't like the rule, it should be a dead ball once the ball hits the stumps.

But as the rule stands, India did nothing wrong.

Batsmen run after ball ricochets of the stumps while effecting a run out. Batsmen run for byes all the time in the end overs without even attempting a shot. Bit like that. Batsmen run even after gets caught of a noball. They cannot have different rules different types of situation.

 

[Saj]

Batsmen run after ball ricochets of the stumps while effecting a run out. Batsmen run for byes all the time in the end overs without even attempting a shot. Bit like that. Batsmen run even after gets caught of a noball. They cannot have different rules different types of situation.

Don't think you are understanding what's being said.

If the ball hits the stumps it should be a dead ball.

 

[light]

Why not? If that was the case then catches should also be considered a dead ball, right? Also, runouts too, if the stump is broken and the batsman is behind the line and is able to steal a run or two, it's allowed. I don't see why this should not be allowed in such instances.

On a side note, I feel like most of these "gray area" rules (if you want to call it) are seriously being sour with the fans and players alike. Players did no wrong, they played according to the rules, and umpires are enforcing the rules set up by ICC. If anyone wants to take a dig, you should at ICC, not the players or umpires. As long as it's within the rules, it is what it is, regardless of if we like it or not.

 

[Caved12]

Should have been called a dead ball. Hard to control where the ball goes after hitting the stumps. ICC needs to change this rule and they must do this asap. What if it goes for a four after hitting the stumps?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Should have been called a dead ball. Hard to control where the ball goes after hitting the stumps. ICC needs to change this rule and they must do this asap. What if it goes for a four after hitting the stumps?

Why sudden change? lol It has happened to Pakistan in the past when Akhtar played. WHy was this not an issue?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Don't think you are understanding what's being said.

If the ball hits the stumps it should be a dead ball.

Free hit ball is different from regular ball. That is a penalty ball. So hitting the stumps shouldn't really give any advantage to opposition much like getting caught of a free hit. You still run even if you get caught. Run is counted.

 

[topspin]

Bowlers are punished enough for bowling no balls. To punish them for runs that've ricocheted off the stumps is just unfair.

I expect ICC to change this rule after the tournament.

I wholeheartedly agree [MENTION=9]Saj[/MENTION] and with your contacts make sure the MCC, who I believe come up with these rules are well informed about this.

 

[Oxfordchamp]

This is not the first time it has happened..it happened in a pak Australia match too in the past and Shoaib was the victim.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

I want a batter to kick all the stumps at the batting end while playing a free hit & go as much back as it's possible. Since hit wicket isn't possible on a free hit, this should not be legally a wrong thing to do.

 

[IMMY69]

This law has to change.
It's illogical.

The batsman has a free hit off a no ball which means everything is in their favour...
However if they can't even hit the free ball and get bowled to it then it makes no sense whatsoever that they can get runs from the ball hitting the stumps and deviating somewhere else...

Similarly if they get caught off a free hit then no runs should be awarded...

 

[Afzal_K]

Don't think you are understanding what's being said.

If the ball hits the stumps it should be a dead ball.

Why? and it's happened before too so you saying that this match holds higher meaning thus change it?

getting bowled is one of the way to get out like getting caught in a no ball so why the special rule for clean bowled?

 

[jino]

I don't like the rule, it should be a dead ball once the ball hits the stumps.

But as the rule stands, India did nothing wrong.

Even if a legal ball hits the stumps and doesn’t dislodge the bail and goes to boundary it’s counted . It happened several times before.

 

[Snatch]

seems a bit ridiculous of a rule

==================================

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Same for all teams but the rule regarding a ball that hits the stumps off a free hit and the batter is allowed to run byes needs to be looked at the by ICC <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/T20WorldCup?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#T20WorldCup</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INDvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INDvPAK</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1584156547432689664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The fact that it's a free hit and the batsman cannot be out any way except run out, then yes. Same as the ball could nick the stumps without the bails being dislodged on a normal delivery and they can run

 

[Suleiman]

It feels wrong, but isn’t it the same when a catch is taken off a free hit? The runs still count as byes, no?

 

[Suleiman]

When did that other rule get changed where the batsmen don't change ends if one gets out off a skier (with the non-striker making it to the other end)??

Almost cost us the game right there.

2 weeks ago… lol.

Only sport I know of with customary changes every year.

 

[fitCricFan]

seems a bit ridiculous of a rule

==================================

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Same for all teams but the rule regarding a ball that hits the stumps off a free hit and the batter is allowed to run byes needs to be looked at the by ICC <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/T20WorldCup?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#T20WorldCup</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INDvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INDvPAK</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1584156547432689664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Nope, what's ridiculous is that Pakistan fans are asking for A rule to be reevaluated/rewritten because the outcome was not to their liking. Their are many other instances in the game when the ball hits the stumps but is not deemed a dead ball so why in this case. The rule has been around and there was no fuss before so why now?
Next time Pakistan looses another game due to some other rule, are we going to ask to get rid of it as well. What about other teams clamoring to evaluate rules that they perceive as their weak links.

Pl. learn to accept defeats just as you would gloat over wins and, yes their are teams that can beat Pakistan fair and square and vice-versa. Not everything is a conspiracy against Pakistan.
Last of all, when the ball hit the stumps, fielders should have been paying more attention in cutting off the runs. Maybe that would have helped.

 

[Shaka81]

It feels like it should be a dead ball as you are taking away the option to directly hit the stumps for a run out which would still be a viable form of dismissal with a free hit.

 

[Afzal_K]

It feels like it should be a dead ball as you are taking away the option to directly hit the stumps for a run out which would still be a viable form of dismissal with a free hit.

Does this come in play then?

According to the law 38 of laws of cricket, If the bails have been removed from the stumps, a batsman is only out if the fielder pulls a stump out of the ground with the hand holding the ball. If one bail is still on the stumps the fielder is allowed to knock the bail off to claim a run out.

 

[JaDed]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 57.878%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/ryjwi8" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

The game with Akhtar ,(PCT vs Aus) similar thing happened.. not the first time just fyi..

 

[MenInG]

Nope, what's ridiculous is that Pakistan fans are asking for A rule to be reevaluated/rewritten because the outcome was not to their liking. Their are many other instances in the game when the ball hits the stumps but is not deemed a dead ball so why in this case. The rule has been around and there was no fuss before so why now?
Next time Pakistan looses another game due to some other rule, are we going to ask to get rid of it as well. What about other teams clamoring to evaluate rules that they perceive as their weak links.

Pl. learn to accept defeats just as you would gloat over wins and, yes their are teams that can beat Pakistan fair and square and vice-versa. Not everything is a conspiracy against Pakistan.
Last of all, when the ball hit the stumps, fielders should have been paying more attention in cutting off the runs. Maybe that would have helped.

If the rule is ridiculous, it should be looked at. What's there to argue about?

 

[MenInG]

There was drama all along in the India-Pakistan encounter at the T20 World Cup on Sunday. After Pakistan gave India a 160-run target, India got off to a poor start losing four wickets in the first seven overs. Then Virat Kohli (82*) and Hardik Pandya (40) stitched a 113-run stand to give India a chance. Still the Rohit Sharma-led team needed 16 runs off the final over bowled by Mohammad Nawaz. A lot happened in that one over - Two wickets fell, two extras were conceded, Virat Kohli got bowled off a free hit but then got three byes and Ravichandran Ashwin finished the game with a cool single.

First up, Nawaz brought the Pakistan team on its feet as he foxed Pandya who mistimed a flat delivery. With new rules coming into effect, Kohli was left stranded at the non-striking end. New man Dinesh Karthik took a single as India needed 15 off four balls. Switching to left-arm medium pace from spin, Nawaz bowled a wide yorker to deny Kohli a boundary but thanks to his superb running, he managed to steal a two.

There was drama in the very next ball when Kohli hit a waist-high full toss for a six over deep square leg and then appealed for a no ball. Marais Erasmus at square leg did not indicate anything, leaving umpire Rod Tucker at the bowling end to signal a no ball.

Discussions followed before both the umpires calmed things down, and Nawaz bowled a wide in the next ball in his attempt to keep it out of Kohli's reach. The wide meant the free hit stayed, else Kohli would have walked back to the dressing room after getting bowled. Instead, the duo ran hard for three.

Pakistan team was not happy with the decision and enquired whether it was a dead ball. However, according to the MCC Laws of Cricket, the ball will be declared dead when "it is finally settled in the hands of the wicketkeeper or of the bowler", or when "a boundary is scored." Also, after "a batter is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal."

As far as the ball hitting the stumps is concerned, it can be declared dead by the umpire if "one or both bails fall from the striker's wicket before the striker has had the opportunity of playing the ball."

None happened and India were given three byes. Needing two off two, the designated finisher Karthik was stumped cleverly by Mohammad Rizwan. Kohli was on 82 as Ashwin took over with two needed off the last ball.

The seasoned off-spinner looked composed and smartly moved away as Nawaz darted one down the leg side for a wide. With the scores tied, as many as seven players closed in on Ashwin. But he allayed all fears of a Super Over by calmly clearing the in-field for a single, sparking wild celebrations in the winning camp and among the Indian fans.

NDTV

 

[introvert]

It feels like it should be a dead ball as you are taking away the option to directly hit the stumps for a run out which would still be a viable form of dismissal with a free hit.

True but same thing happens when batsman hits straight to non striker stumps and bails fall but fielding teams no longer have direct hit opportunity there as well. There is still uprooting stumps with ball in hand option to run out batsman.

I guess It's one of those thing that purely depends on luck just like batsman getting catch out due to ball deflected by non striker.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Pakistanis should hold their hands up. They lost to one brilliant individual innings. Give the person his due, rather than taking the sheen of a brilliant innings.

If they had a problem with this rule, should have discussed it before the tournament. Now it just sounds like sour grapes.

Pakistanis usually aren't conspiracy theorists. That is some other teams usually. We are better at poking fun at ourselves. This is a good time to do that.

 

[Varun]

Simon Taufel with an explanation on LinkedIn of all places:

 

[Maliq_Mudasir]

good bowl doesnt matter on a free hit. Same way caught out isnt considered.

Only run out is a possibility on a free hit as it should be

If good ball doesn't matter on the free hit then why to consider dot ball as a dot on free hit ?

Rather than having this illogical rule, better to give 6 runs penalty for no ball with no free hit after it. That still makes sense rather stupid decision of batter allowing to hit the stump and run for easy runs.

 

[Maliq_Mudasir]

Pakistanis should hold their hands up. They lost to one brilliant individual innings. Give the person his due, rather than taking the sheen of a brilliant innings.

If they had a problem with this rule, should have discussed it before the tournament. Now it just sounds like sour grapes.

Pakistanis usually aren't conspiracy theorists. That is some other teams usually. We are better at poking fun at ourselves. This is a good time to do that.

The problem is not with the byes on free hit, it is with the No ball which was called after Kohli demanded.Rightly so, Erasmus was in no mood to give it a no ball.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

This is the most ridiculous rule.

Of course the batsmen should not be able to get runs when they are bowled out out on a free hit.

No idea which idiots decided this was a good rule.

And batsmen shouldn't be able to make runs if they are caught off a free hit either.

 

[Executioner]

Batsmen can run if they are caught on a free hit but can't run if he is bowled ? This is hypocrisy at it's best.

It's a free hit

 

[MP2011]

Simon Taufel with an explanation on LinkedIn of all places:

What does Simon Taufel know about cricket rules?

 

[MP2011]

Batsmen can run if they are caught on a free hit but can't run if he is bowled ? This is hypocrisy at it's best.

It's a free hit

Precisely. Just because this rule affected a team doesn't make it ridiculous.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Batsmen can run if they are caught on a free hit but can't run if he is bowled ? This is hypocrisy at it's best.

It's a free hit

Where was the hit?

Indians don't seem to grasp that talking about the rule is not a criticism of them.

They were well within their rights to run 3.

Doesn't mean the rule can't be debated. Other rules change over time and so should this one.

 

[Executioner]

Where was the hit?

Indians don't seem to grasp that talking about the rule is not a criticism of them.

They were well within their rights to run 3.

Doesn't mean the rule can't be debated. Other rules change over time and so should this one.

I think the law is perfectly fair. If you change this law then might as well eliminate runs from ball ricocheting off the stumps.

My advice is - DO NOT BOWL A NO BALL.

Now whether the decision by the umpire was harsh or not is a different debate.

 

[oatmeal]

The rule is fine, no need to rewrite it.

What happened was once a 1 percent event - in most cases a fielding team would be perfectly happy with the batsmen running off a free hit ball instead of giving up a boundary- even if it ricocheted off the stumps

 

[Nikhil_cric]

It's fine as it is. Not only is it logical but it also shows which teams /players have more match awareness and which teams and players don't.

Similar to when Warner hit that ball by Hafeez for six in the last World T20 semi final.

It adds to the drama and excitement and that's great

 

[Saurav]

If good ball doesn't matter on the free hit then why to consider dot ball as a dot on free hit ?

Rather than having this illogical rule, better to give 6 runs penalty for no ball with no free hit after it. That still makes sense rather stupid decision of batter allowing to hit the stump and run for easy runs.

eh? A free hit can be a dot only because of good fielding not bowling

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

The problem is not with the byes on free hit, it is with the No ball which was called after Kohli demanded.Rightly so, Erasmus was in no mood to give it a no ball.

Every player in the history of the game has demanded a no-ball when they have felt they were bowled a waist high full toss.

Umpires refer those for checks all the time.

What Kohli did, and what umpires did subsequently, is nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[dildilpak]

The problem is not with the byes on free hit, it is with the No ball which was called after Kohli demanded.Rightly so, Erasmus was in no mood to give it a no ball.

No, Erasmus looked confused momentarily because of the running byes. Kohli apprealed (anybody would under those circumstances), but Erasmus signalled bye only after consulting with the other umpire.

The issue was not the bye but the actual no-ball the previous delivery. Now that was a very marginal call & a tad bit harsh on the bowler.

 

[IMMY69]

It's fine as it is. Not only is it logical but it also shows which teams /players have more match awareness and which teams and players don't.

Similar to when Warner hit that ball by Hafeez for six in the last World T20 semi final.

It adds to the drama and excitement and that's great

Not really because that was clever from Warner whereas this was a ball hitting the stumps and the deviating away. What if it goes to the boundary?

A bowler has already been penalised for bowling no ball which gives the batsman a freehit. So then why should the bowler and the team be penalised again for bowling a good delivery?

 

[Executioner]

Not really because that was clever from Warner whereas this was a ball hitting the stumps and the deviating away. What if it goes to the boundary?

A bowler has already been penalised for bowling no ball which gives the batsman a freehit. So then why should the bowler and the team be penalised again for bowling a good delivery?

Bowlers induce and edge and the ball goes to the boundary. Maybe not penalize the bowler I'd there is an "edge"?

This is cricket for you. Good balls concede runs, bad balls get you wicket.