Is the ICC's no-ball penalty justified?

[Mr. Logical]

Title says it all but in this thread i want to point out the unfairness for a bowler and a batsman alike due to unjustified penalty for different cases of no balls.

Is it justified that if a bowler just marginally crosses that line while in the momentum of his run up, he is penalized so harshly that he concedes one extra run, he has to bowl another delivery and that too a FREE HIT!

Whereas the same bowler if tries too hard and throws a lethal lightning fast bowl above the waist line of unsuspecting batsman, his punishment is less, he has to give away no free hit.

If u think LOGICALLY this is much graver crime than overstepping as it could seriously injure a batsman and end his career by a getting hit in ribs or chest. Moreover, this awkward practically impairs a batsman range of strokes, whereas, on an overstepped bowl, a batsman can play that delivery in any way he likes

Therefore, for welfare of both bowlers and batsmen, shouldn't ICC reconsider this very important point?

 

[Nuekboi]

Maybe, perhaps, possibly, it is justifiable

 

[raamu kaka]

you can bowl as many front foot no balls as you like, but could bowl only one beamer (full toss over waist line) at most.... as soon as you dare bowling the 2nd, you're finished.

Don't u think, getting the bowler done for the match merely for bowling 2 beamers is enough off a penalty??

 

[Mr. Logical]

you can bowl as many front foot no balls as you like, but could bowl only one beamer (full toss over waist line) at most.... as soon as you dare bowling the 2nd, you're finished.

Don't u think, getting the bowler done for the match merely for bowling 2 beamers is enough off a penalty??

But just think ...the first (intentional)one can critically injure a batsman..no body would bother for the second then...

I mean unintentional is fine ..but intentional should be actually fined...

dont you also think that beamer alteast calls for a free hit ...for batsman to let out his aggression a bit...

 

[raamu kaka]

But just think ...the first (intentional)one can critically injure a batsman..no body would bother for the second then...

I mean unintentional is fine ..but intentional should be actually fined...

dont you also think that beamer alteast calls for a free hit ...for batsman to let out his aggression a bit...

even an "intentional" toe crusher can injure a batsman, would u like having a free hit for that as well? nobody bowls beamers for fun (intentionally) there's still enough spirit of the game, i guess...

since i'm pro-batsmen, i won't mind having a free hit for every beamer....

 

[Mr. Logical]

even an "intentional" toe crusher can injure a batsman, would u like having a free hit for that as well? nobody bowls beamers for fun (intentionally) there's still enough spirit of the game, i guess...

since i'm pro-batsmen, i won't mind having a free hit for every beamer....

I mean come on..kaka.. you are comparing a harmless yorker(there is boot guard) with a thud in ribs(if no chest guard..as usually is...)

 

[RagingJ]

Beamers are very rare, and when are done are unintentional.

No balls however occur more often it's why it gets punished more severely.

 

[Garuda]

I really don't like the "free hit" concept.

First of all you have penalized the bowler by giving one extra run. Why penalize again by giving free hit ?

If it was done to reduce no-ball so that innings don't run longer, I see its actually having opposite effect.


With free hit concept the discussion between captain and bowler goes longer (sometimes fielding changes) for that ball and more time is spent.

 

[Mr. Logical]

I really don't like the "free hit" concept.

First of all you have penalized the bowler by giving one extra run. Why penalize again by giving free hit ?

If it was done to reduce no-ball so that innings don't run longer, I see its actually having opposite effect.


With free hit concept the discussion between captain and bowler goes longer (sometimes fielding changes) for that ball and more time is spent.

So which type of no ball deserves more penalty

 

[Garuda]

So which type of no ball deserves more penalty

None. Just revert back to what it was in old times.

Take 1 run extra and move on. No free hit drama.

 

[LooneyReturns]

I hate the free hit rule , should not be there .

 

[Mr. Logical]

I hate the free hit rule , should not be there .

If there were no free hit bowlers would keep on jumping above that white line
But isnt the penalty for waist high no ball should also be very harsh..like subtract match fees of such a bowler who has no control where he is shooting the ball..can even kill a batsman

 

[Gigii]

If there were no free hit bowlers would keep on jumping above that white line
But isnt the penalty for waist high no ball should also be very harsh..like subtract match fees of such a bowler who has no control where he is shooting the ball..can even kill a batsman

There's too many confounding factors like a wet ball, slower balls that go wrong etc to subject waist high no balls that much.

Instead of a run + free hit, why not penalise 2 runs?

 

[Mr. Logical]

There's too many confounding factors like a wet ball, slower balls that go wrong etc to subject waist high no balls that much.

Instead of a run + free hit, why not penalise 2 runs?

But is it justified to punish bowlers less for this no ball..and more for front foot one....?

 

[James]

In Test cricket it is a good deterrent against tactical no-balls.

 

[Mr. Logical]

In Test cricket it is a good deterrent against tactical no-balls.

James ..u didnt get my point..Ok if they penalise it ...but what i want to discuss is the penalities for each no ball..are they justified...plz read op
thanks

 

[James]

I'm not that bothered about ODI cricket nor do I give much thought to the fairness of its rules, but purely off the bat I think a penalty run is always fair and a free hit probably isn't.

 

[Robbie]

Why are u bent upon proving that you are some sort of superior person who doesnt care about anything other than tests...AS you can hopefully COMPREHEND the thread WAS about this low quality ODI cricket ...SO WHY JOIN....

Thats probably cause England haven't won anything in ODI cricket

 

[Major]

For the overstepping:
Before the Free Hit Rule came along, bowlers use to bowl a lot of over the line no balls. No balls were as common as wide balls, however as soon as the free hit rule came along, bowlers have been able to control the number of over the line stepping No balls.

As for the Waist Above No ball:
Its true, that one bad no-ball could end up giving a serious injury to the batsmen, but the reason why the bouncer rule is not harsh, is because bowling a bouncer is a strategy and technique. Batsmen could get out to a bouncer or leave it as a dot ball. Even injuring him would count as a technique in my opinion

Bowling a over the line no ball is not a technique; hence the harsh penalty.

But in my opinion, the rules are to harsh on the Bouncer rule. If they are going to limit the number of bouncers because a batsmen could get injured, then why not limit the rule on bowling Yorkers, because it could end up crushing you're toe, couldn't it?

The limit on bouncers was bought in by the Aussies and English, because in the past they had an influence on the cricket rules. They couldn't play those bouncers that use to be bowled by the West Indian or pakistani players; thus to save themselves they limited the bouncers

 

[The intelligent Supporter]

Wow..an interesting thread..so what is our conclusion then guys

 

[gazza619]

good point..ICC rarely makes logical rules these days..they need to reconsider a lot of things..Umpire's call in the DRS is also pathetic...

 

[The intelligent Supporter]

2 years Later ICC justified this guy's claims.. Amazing to be honest.
Some real cricketing sense on display. One of the reasons I love PP. Does any body know, if this guy posts anymore?

 

[Square Drive]

I like free-hits; make the game more entertaining.

 

[The intelligent Supporter]

Any one know where this poster went?
I kinda liked his posts and even this one made so much sense. That ICC followed it 2 yrs later.
Havent seen him arouund. Is he active?

Thanks

 

[WC-Passion]

I like free-hits; make the game more entertaining.

This.

 

[Abdullah719]

Media release

Marylebone Cricket Club today announced that it has amended Law 41.7, the Law which concerns the bowling of dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries (beamers).

The Law published a little over twelve months ago imposed stricter penalties on a bowler who delivers a full toss over the batsman’s waist. Since its introduction, feedback has been received which suggests strongly that the new sanctions were overly severe (especially to younger bowlers). In many cases, Governing Bodies introduced their own playing conditions that rendered the new Law irrelevant.

In response to this feedback, the Laws sub-committee has reviewed Law 41.7 and – with the support of the Cricket committee, World Cricket committee and MCC Committee – agreed that it should be adjusted, with effect from 1st April 2019, to allow umpires to make a more subjective decision over which deliveries are dangerous.

This and other minor clarifications and corrections from the 1st Edition will also be incorporated into the 2nd Edition. All other changes will be confirmed by early January 2019 ahead of universal adoption from 1st April 2019. MCC’s Laws eLearning platform will be updated in the New Year to reflect the amends.