Time for a rule change?

As we've seen the rules have evolved over time, largely for the better. But my eldest lad was playing indoor practice last weekend and was stumped off a wide in a 10 over blast. It got me thinking, 20 and 50 over professional cricket has a crazy rule that you can be out off an illegal delivery. Right, so particularly in 20 over form, the game is about positiveness, about players making fast runs and being on the front foot, so to speak. Yet a bowler can bowl a no-ball, an illegal delivery and the batsman is out if he raises his foot or moves forward trying to score and be positive. For me this is ridiculous and unless trying to complete a run which is clearly not there, no way should a batsman be out off a no ball of any kind. I say get rid of stumping off wides, the ball is illegally delivered and that should be that, one run and the ball bowled again. Am i alone here in thinking this?

Sometimes the bowler sees the batsman coming and deliberately pushes it wide to prevent a run or effect a stumping. Should the bowler be penalized for clever bowling?

The batsman is allowed to charge down the track to change the length.

We already have the anomaly where a bowler is no balled if he changes his delivery from over to round without informing the batsman. However a batsman can change for left to right handed without penalty

??? A wide is not a no ball.

But you can't be stumped off a no ball although you can be run out.

dismissals possible from a wide:

stumped
run out
hit wicket
obstructing the field, hit the ball twice
retired, out


dismissals possible from a no ball

run out
obstructing the field, hit the ball twice
retired, out



and for interest:

"Kieron Pollard was stumped off a wide from the first ball he received in the World Twenty20 match against England. Is this the first such "diamond duck" from a stumping rather than a run-out in international cricket? asked Tom from Australia

Rather surprisingly, we can trace only one previous instance in international cricket of a batsman being stumped first ball off a wide (thus going down in the scorebook as having faced 0 balls). The man who preceded Kieron Pollard in the Twenty20 international in Providence last week was the Canadian fast bowler Henry Osinde, who was stumped first ball by Niall O'Brien off an Alex Cusack wide while playing Ireland in a one-day international during the World Cup qualifying tournament in Benoni in April 2009. It's possible there are further undetected instances - and several other people have been stumped off wides at later stages of their innings in limited-overs internationals".

Many such stumpings off wides are due to shrewd bowling; a quicker ball down the leg side to the keeper against a batsman advancing, so I would not be supportive of a rule change!

Well i feel that negative bowling should not be encouraged. If the ball is wide it is illegal, the terminology doesn't really matter, wide, no ball, whatever. The ball is not a legal one so unless the batsman is trying to run, then i can't see why an illegal ball should result in a wicket if the batsman is trying to stay positive. After all, that is what 20-20 and 50 over cricket is about, it's why people watch those forms of the game much more than the 5 day stuff nowadays. It's like a goal in football resulting from an illegal throw in, it would be called back and the goal ruled out, assuming someone saw it. Anyway seems like just me wants it so i'll get back to clearing my driveway in sunny Yarm.

There have been far more stumping from wides in T20 and ODI than in Tests. It remains a legitimate ploy for a bowler to bowl the ball wide deliberately against a batsman who is advancing. Why tee the ball up for flat track bullies?

Not sure the foul throw analogy is correct. Firstly you cannot score directly from a legitimate throw, and secondly a high percentage of throws in the EPL would be blown up in junior leagues.

On the contrary. I think they should bring back LBW & clean bowled off a wide.

PeterCS wrote:On the contrary. I think they should bring back LBW & clean bowled off a wide.

Get *+&@/) horrie

FFS! How much easier for the batsman do you want to make the game? They're already more protected than the Giant Panda. My son's goldfish could make runs in T20.

I can certainly see the logic in what you're saying. There's no denying a wide is an illegal delivery (the fielding side are penalised runs and it has to be bowled again) so why should a bowler be able to take a wicket from it?

I have a lot of sympathy for what lardie and bradman are saying though. Especially in limited overs cricket bowlers are becoming bit players in their own film so I like the idea that spinners at least can ping the ball wide when they see a batter coming at them and get them out.

In conclusion: keep the law as it is.

Other than for spinners who 'ping' the ball.

Agreed. They should have their hands cut off.

that's too harsh

their elbows should be surgically fused

I have been a critic of the GOAT, but at least there is no asterisk against his name and stats.

H, I'm struggling to remember the last time you praised an Aussie cricketer (excluding Vile Vomits).

You even manage to disparage Steve Smith, who is sitting on the 2nd highest ever rating for a Test batsman.

I worry that your inherent cynicism has multiplied in the wake of your departure from the workforce.

But .... I thought Horace had been laid up in (at best) a care home for the past 70 years? Was he fibbing?


But to law changes. A hobbyhorse is that no further runs should be credited from the point a throw dislodges the bails (direct throw). Overthrows for a direct stump hit are as absurd as allowing leg byes off no attempt to play the ball - and more absurd than the previous law of Umpire's Call going against the DRS reviewers.

Should no-balls that dislodge the bails, evade the keeper, and run to the boundary still count?

As no-balls? Or as fours, fives, sixes?

as 4 no balls

skully wrote:H, I'm struggling to remember the last time you praised an Aussie cricketer (excluding Vile Vomits).

You even manage to disparage Steve Smith, who is sitting on the 2nd highest ever rating for a Test batsman.

I worry that your inherent cynicism has multiplied in the wake of your departure from the workforce.

Bit harsh young bean. Should have used "had" not have re the GOAT. I take pleasure from our attack, particularly Second and Koo and think Seasick is having a great career as a batsman. The jury is out on his captaincy. Was a fan of UKs but have gone off him. My views on the Marsh's and gcspoc are now negative, so I always expect and often get the worst. I admit to pointing out Paine's misses and average batting.

I admit to cynicism about the nepotism and cronyism that has in my view often farked up Oz selection.

"necronypotism"

lardbucket wrote:as 4 no balls

Probably.

But that's the fault of the bowler.

Whereas the fielder was spot-on ... sort of my point!

PeterCS wrote:"necronypotism"

That should be nomed for the next edition of the OED!

"Work" was occupational therapy in the Queensland Nursing Home. Bastwrdes!