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

[Saj]

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.

I agree.

It's definitely a rule that ICC need to amend.

A bowler is being penalised for getting a batter out - ridiculous.

 

[Local.Dada]

I agree.

It's definitely a rule that ICC need to amend.

A bowler is being penalised for getting a batter out - ridiculous.

What if it’s a catch out or plumb LBW then?

Also if the ball hits the stumps and ricochets should batsmen take over throws? I think no one has issues there.

So by both accounts the rule is completely fair I feel and not because it went in Indias favor .

 

[IMMY69]

What if it’s a catch out or plumb LBW then?

Also if the ball hits the stumps and ricochets should batsmen take over throws? I think no one has issues there.

So by both accounts the rule is completely fair I feel and not because it went in Indias favor .

Overthrows, ricochets etc are entirely different though.
These are when a ball has been hit from a usual delivery whereas a free hit is when a team is penalised for a no ball and the batsman cannot be out bowled, LBW or caught. So why should the bowling side be penalised twice?

If the batsmen is not good enough to hit the ball or clear the field then why should he have the benefit of making runs? A further penalty for a bowler being able to bowl a good delivery?

Also, in any sport you are rewarded for your efforts not from a lack of ability. So a ball hitting the stumps, which would normally have been given out, goes to the boundary is just rewarding mediocrity...

It's just too biased towards the batsman.

 

[Saj]

Aussie legend calls for rule change that would have reversed India vs Pakistan result

Keeping your wicket from a free hit if you are out should be enough of a bonus says former Aussie skipper Mark Taylor after India's epic victory over Pakistan

Aussie cricket great and former skipper Mark Taylor has called into question the ‘unfair advantage’ enjoyed by Virat Kohli and India in their T20 World Cup epic.

Taylor has urged lawmakers to consider making a change where free hits are concerned, which would have completely changed the result from an Indian win to a Pakistan victory in Melbourne.

The 57-year-old is referring to the moment in the final crazy over when Kohli was bowled off a free hit, but the ball deflected off the stump in such a way that they were able to run three crucial byes.

With two runs required eventually required to win from the final ball it shows just how crucial that moment was for India in scenes reminiscent of the deflected overthrows that benefitted England in the 2019 World Cup final against New Zealand.

Taylor though points out there is a crucial difference here, which is that India were able to benefit twice from an earlier mistake from Pakistan.

A no-ball from Mohammad Nawaz meant that Kohli had a free hit and couldn’t be out from the next ball which is why he played such an extravagant sweep shot as the ball cannoned into the base of off stump.

And Taylor reckons keeping your wicket is bonus enough from a free hit, and if you are dismissed going for a big shot then the ball should be ‘dead’ as soon as that happens.

It is still a big benefit for the batting side who can keep any runs from a boundary or those run, but would prevent the bowler from being punished effectively a third time, because there is also a bonus run to the opposition too.

"I think if the ball hits the stumps you're actually gaining an unfair advantage," said Taylor to Wide World of Sport.

"Firstly, in the situation like we saw on Sunday night, the ball can deflect anywhere, and secondly, if the fielding team is trying to run the batter out, the bails are already on the ground and you've got to remove the stump, so that's harder as well.

"I think if the batter is bowled or caught off the free hit, you're not out but the ball should then be dead, that would be fair and reasonable.

"You've got the advantage of not being out off a free hit, but you shouldn't benefit a second time from what would normally be considered a dismissal."

 

[jnaveen1980]

Where was Taylor when Australia got the same advantage against Pakistan?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Where was Taylor when Australia got the same advantage against Pakistan?

When did this happen?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Overthrows, ricochets etc are entirely different though.
These are when a ball has been hit from a usual delivery whereas a free hit is when a team is penalised for a no ball and the batsman cannot be out bowled, LBW or caught. So why should the bowling side be penalised twice?

If the batsmen is not good enough to hit the ball or clear the field then why should he have the benefit of making runs? A further penalty for a bowler being able to bowl a good delivery?

Also, in any sport you are rewarded for your efforts not from a lack of ability. So a ball hitting the stumps, which would normally have been given out, goes to the boundary is just rewarding mediocrity...

It's just too biased towards the batsman.

This is something fielding teams should be aware of. They should be ready for such a situation. Did Kohli stand there without running. They didn't waste any time. They immediately started running. Because they knew rules. Pakistan team was looking dumbfounded. You still shouldn't have allowed them to run 3. Not the first time Pakistan suffered due to lack of knowledge about rules. Remember Inzamam defending a throw at the stumps

 

[jnaveen1980]

When did this happen?

I shared the video here. But was deleted. Mark Taylor was the commentator ironically. Check one of the responses to the tweet from Grant elliot (nz cricketer).

 

[jnaveen1980]

The way i see it rules are not different for different teams. On a different day Pakistan may have the same advantage. As long as it is the same for all teams it is fair. This rule has been in existence for years. Suddenly after one match talking about changing the rule make no sense. You should have raised it right after the rules were written

 

[IMMY69]

This is something fielding teams should be aware of. They should be ready for such a situation. Did Kohli stand there without running. They didn't waste any time. They immediately started running. Because they knew rules. Pakistan team was looking dumbfounded. You still shouldn't have allowed them to run 3. Not the first time Pakistan suffered due to lack of knowledge about rules. Remember Inzamam defending a throw at the stumps

My friend I am discussing the game of cricket as a whole and. Not yesterdays game.
It's not about India vs Pakistan or which team won the game. It's a rule I wasn't even aware of until it happened yesterday and it seems like a ridiculous law that needs be changed.

Mark Taylor put more eloquently then I did.
You're effectively penalising the team twice maybe even three times as the law stands now.

 

[JaDed]

Aussie legends had no issue when it favored them vs Pakistan quiet a few years ago.

 

[Saj]

The way i see it rules are not different for different teams. On a different day Pakistan may have the same advantage. As long as it is the same for all teams it is fair. This rule has been in existence for years. Suddenly after one match talking about changing the rule make no sense. You should have raised it right after the rules were written

Many rules over the years have been changed after incidents or controversies.

You seem to be suggesting that no rule should ever be changed, which is ludicrous.

 

[jnaveen1980]

My friend I am discussing the game of cricket as a whole and. Not yesterdays game.
It's not about India vs Pakistan or which team won the game. It's a rule I wasn't even aware of until it happened yesterday and it seems like a ridiculous law that needs be changed.

Mark Taylor put more eloquently then I did.
You're effectively penalising the team twice maybe even three times as the law stands now.

The problem with Mark Taylor's opinion is , he himself was part of the commentary squad when Australia gained the exact same advantage against Pakistan. Why didn't he bring it up then? This rule has been in existence since the freehit was introduced in 2007. 15 years later sudden change of law is needed?

 

[Stewie]

No you cannot do that, if the freehit stays, so does this rule, they can run when bowled. But I think the whole free hit rule should be eliminated and they should have a third umpire sound an alarm immediately if they see the bowler overstepped the line, so the batsman knows its a no-ball. We just seem to be going completely out of our way to give the benefit to the batsmen, and the so called advantage we are giving the bowler does not even make sense, (such as the no crossing rule, which I think should also be eliminated)

Look you are giving the batting team one run for bowling a no-ball and the bowling team already has to rebowl the ball, I think its totally fair to do away with it in my opinion.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Many rules over the years have been changed after incidents or controversies.

You seem to be suggesting that no rule should ever be changed, which is ludicrous.

I am not sure rules will change based on reaction after an intense match. Otherwise, Mankading would have been long gone. It still exists. They don't plan to change either. The only way I can think of this going away is when they remove free hit altogether which I have no problem with. Runout still exists. You can still run the batsman out when they attempt a run.

 

[Saj]

I am not sure rules will change based on reaction after an intense match. Otherwise, Mankading would have been long gone. It still exists. They don't plan to change either. The only way I can think of this going away is when they remove free hit altogether which I have no problem with. Runout still exists. You can still run the batsman out when they attempt a run.

Rules are changed in all sports when they are seen to be flawed not on reaction.

If that was the case then rules would be changed again and again and again.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Rules are changed in all sports when they are seen to be flawed not on reaction.

If that was the case then rules would be changed again and again and again.

Let me explain why this won't be changed. If you get bowled off a no-ball you can take a run. I am not talking about the free hit. Actual no-ball. Free-hit is an extension of no-ball so it will have the same benefits that no-ball has. You can still get run out of a no-ball. The same way you can get run out of a free hit. So the argument should be "Eliminate the free-hit" not "Eliminate part of a free-hit"

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I shared the video here. But was deleted. Mark Taylor was the commentator ironically. Check one of the responses to the tweet from Grant elliot (nz cricketer).

Just seen it and it only reinforces my view.

That was worse than the Virat incident. The batter literally runs away from the stumps out of fear, gets clean bowled and still gets runs.

Doesnt matter what junior waugh may have thought in the past.

 

[JaDed]

Rules are changed in all sports when they are seen to be flawed not on reaction.

If that was the case then rules would be changed again and again and again.

That is true only question is why wasn’t the rule changed when it happened to Akhtar vs Aus? Because it didn’t happen in the last over but the first ball?

 

[IMMY69]

The problem with Mark Taylor's opinion is , he himself was part of the commentary squad when Australia gained the exact same advantage against Pakistan. Why didn't he bring it up then? This rule has been in existence since the freehit was introduced in 2007. 15 years later sudden change of law is needed?

Why is there a problem with Mark Taylor's opinion?
If tomorrow, or in ten years time, if one of the Indian players says that the rule needs to be changed... does what happened yesterday negate that view?

People are allowed to reflect and change their views...

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

When did this happen?

To be fair it also happened in BBL , where ball went for four after hitting the stump on free hit I think and was called 4 byes, this is quit old rule.
I remember symonds taking run on being bowled on no ball of Zaheer khan in first test of 2007 series.
You can take run even when ball hits stump on no ball and by extension on free hit.
Now if you are against free hit then I am with you, as I think bowler should not be punished twiced

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Just seen it and it only reinforces my view.

That was worse than the Virat incident. The batter literally runs away from the stumps out of fear, gets clean bowled and still gets runs.

Doesnt matter what junior waugh may have thought in the past.

Sorry I meant Mark Taylor and not Waugh

 

[jnaveen1980]

Why is there a problem with Mark Taylor's opinion?
If tomorrow, or in ten years time, if one of the Indian players says that the rule needs to be changed... does what happened yesterday negate that view?

People are allowed to reflect and change their views...

It is highly reactionary without understanding why that rule is designed that way. First of all free hit itself is not part of cricketing regular law book. It was created to add some entertainment value. Free hit is where you can literally do anything that you would do to an actual no-ball without being penalized. You have zero consequences except getting run out same as no-ball. You can get caught, you can get stumped, you can get bowled same as no-ball. With no-ball you can get bowled and run. Same way with free-hit you can get bowled and run. It is simple and straightforward to follow.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Next time when you bowl a free hit ball miss the stumps There is your solution.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Next time when you bowl a free hit ball miss the stumps There is your solution.

Actually hitting the stump on free hit is second best after dot ball.
Apart from one odd case, ball hitting on stump always stays near the area allowing atmost one run.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Many rules over the years have been changed after incidents or controversies.

You seem to be suggesting that no rule should ever be changed, which is ludicrous.

Mark Taylor is one of the guys with an influential voice. His suggestions carry a lot of weight in Australian Cricket. Let's see whether ICC take it up or not.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Actually hitting the stump on free hit is second best after dot ball.
Apart from one odd case, ball hitting on stump always stays near the area allowing atmost one run.

This solution is exclusively for Pakistan.

 

[Stewie]

i dont know why we are being so bitter about it. i can understand the noball call being unfair but this rule is the same for everyone. and it is here to stay far as i can tell. its just one game, andwe lost it fair and square. the world cup just started. its not over. get over it!

 

[shamaan]

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

No I still would have said its a stupid rule.Winning and loosing is part and parcel of the game.

 

[ask_analyse_act]

"Firstly, in the situation like we saw on Sunday night, the ball can deflect anywhere, and secondly, if the fielding team is trying to run the batter out, the bails are already on the ground and you've got to remove the stump, so that's harder as well.

This actually needs to be checked as this is too much benefit for the batting side and it makes cricket a funny game with catching stumps in one hand for a run out....

Should be looked into for the bowled situation.. Sth like cannot run after being bowled in a free hit and of course not out...

 

[jeetu]

ICC should change rule regarding free hit to "If batsman gets out no runs should be awarded to batting team".

 

[greatest]

WOW FREEHIT....The batsmen should start running before the ball is released!

 

[ftbno1]

The thread reminds me of Captain Rusell from Lagaan.
He wanted to ban Goli from bowling but rule could be changed only after match

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

What if it’s a catch out or plumb LBW then?

Also if the ball hits the stumps and ricochets should batsmen take over throws? I think no one has issues there.

So by both accounts the rule is completely fair I feel and not because it went in Indias favor .

If it's a catch out, then should be a dead ball as Taylor already said in that post.

Plumb lbw treated like a leg bye if the batsman somehow manages to run off it.

 

[jnaveen1980]

If it's a catch out, then should be a dead ball as Taylor already said in that post.

Plumb lbw treated like a leg bye if the batsman somehow manages to run off it.

lol Why is it a dead ball? You will have to change it for no-ball as well. Something like "If a batsman gets caught of no-ball, ball is dead". They ain't changing that. Because Freehit = (Legal) No-ball. That was the idea of a free hit. Free-hit will not have any consequence. Anything that is applicable for Noball will be applicable for free hit. What is the point of free-hit if you deprive several avenues of scoring runs of a free-hit.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

This is something fielding teams should be aware of. They should be ready for such a situation. Did Kohli stand there without running. They didn't waste any time. They immediately started running. Because they knew rules. Pakistan team was looking dumbfounded. You still shouldn't have allowed them to run 3. Not the first time Pakistan suffered due to lack of knowledge about rules. Remember Inzamam defending a throw at the stumps

That game is over. No one can change that result now. What Mark Taylor is saying is to change the rule going forward.
In fact the whole free hit should be removed it gives an unfair advantage to batting side. In T20 the rules are overwhelmingly in favor of the Batting side.
A no ball should be bowled again with a bonus 1 run should be enough penalty. Giving a 'Free hit' which is way too much of penalty.

 

[jnaveen1980]

That game is over. No one can change that result now. What Mark Taylor is saying is to change the rule going forward.
In fact the whole free hit should be removed it gives an unfair advantage to batting side. In T20 the rules are overwhelmingly in favor of the Batting side.
A no ball should be bowled again with a bonus 1 run should be enough penalty. Giving a 'Free hit' which is way too much of penalty.

Free hit was added for entertainment value. Same rule for all. I have no problem with getting rid of it. But i do have problem removing selective runs scored off a free hit. Either you get rid of free hit altogether or keep it as it is.

 

[giri26]

I agree.

It's definitely a rule that ICC need to amend.

A bowler is being penalised for getting a batter out - ridiculous.

The point of free hit is that the bowler cannot get the batsman out. So I don't understand how getting the batsman out even comes into picture. If you are advocating for the free-hit to be completely removed then fair enough but you cannot have it both ways. The only reason the batter would be swinging hard or will be playing that shot is because it is a free-hit and he cannot get out. So telling that you cannot take a run when you are caught or bowled does not make sense, since those dismissals are not valid on a free hit.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Btw my old stance is very clear, I don't agree with free hit, bowler has been penalise already with extra ball and extra run, no need to punish him/ her with freehit

 

[MenInG]

Question is not about the rule.

Question is whether it is right or wrong.

Concentrate on that question.

 

[jeetu]

I think they also needs to amend waist height rule. If ball trajectory shows ball will go over stump height then it should be deemed no ball. It would be a standardized system will low chance of error. Hopefully it will keep "beamer" out of the game.

 

[shamaan]

I think they also needs to amend waist height rule. If ball trajectory shows ball will go over stump height then it should be deemed no ball. It would be a standardized system will low chance of error. Hopefully it will keep "beamer" out of the game.

that is a good suggestion.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

Question is not about the rule.

Question is whether it is right or wrong.

Concentrate on that question.

Mark Taylor is right, it should be a dead ball. This rule came from Test cricket where it doesn't make much difference.
However the free hit needs to be removed altogether. it unfair & a silly rule

 

[fitCricFan]

I agree.

It's definitely a rule that ICC need to amend.

A bowler is being penalised for getting a batter out - ridiculous.

What happens when a bowler hits the batsman on the leg and its a clear LBW. The whole point of a penalty ball is that the bowler is being penalised and the batsman can attempt to hit any which way he/she sees fit without worrying about getting out in a traditional way.

Don't understand why this is raising so much controversy now. There wasn't an iota of protest back when same stuff happened to Shoaib. I guess Pakistan somehow needs to justify the loss to India but after today's loss to Zim, it doesn't matter

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

This is something fielding teams should be aware of. They should be ready for such a situation. Did Kohli stand there without running. They didn't waste any time. They immediately started running. Because they knew rules. Pakistan team was looking dumbfounded. You still shouldn't have allowed them to run 3. Not the first time Pakistan suffered due to lack of knowledge about rules. Remember Inzamam defending a throw at the stumps

This is perhaps the first wonderful and perspective from the other angle. We were more switched on, the pak fiielders and wikki were busy mouthing their appeals.
You snooze you loose -zindagi ka seekh!
And in a high pressure high stakes match our guys had more cranium, the opposition were more bombastic and flat footed.
end of the day, we played within the rules and won like true champs!
kudos for pak for giving a good fight but sadly there is only one winner- you ripper of a beaut India !