View Full Version : Front foot no balls = 4 runs
happy_eagle
29 Dec 2007, 16:17
this is a concept that bill lawry continusly craps on about
he says that front foot balls should be a 4 run penalty
personaly i think he is off his nut, and thats a crap idea
wooostace
29 Dec 2007, 16:20
2 for the first of the over, with 4 for the second, 6 for the third etc.
Power21
29 Dec 2007, 16:32
2 for the first of the over, with 4 for the second, 6 for the third etc.
That's a better idea, there really is no excuse for no-balls.
Move the bowling marker back 4 inches, it's not like the extra couple of inches they might get will help with pace.
2 runs would be a good idea.
first of all - Bill Lawry has been off his nut for the last 10 years and shouldn't even be commentating anymore. Did anyone hear his comment after Clark got Laxman "well, Stuart Clark will get the wicket, but i think it was Laxman's doing, good bowling from Clark"
WHAT BILL?!?! What drug are you on.
and a front foot no ball should be worth 2 runs.
What about every time an Aussie bowls a no ball, Bill has to bite the head off one of his pigeons
Sounds ok except for the animal cruelty bit
Power21
29 Dec 2007, 16:38
What about every time an Aussie bowls a no ball, Bill has to bite the head off one of his pigeons
Sounds ok except for the animal cruelty bit
Ummmm, ok.:confused:
TheBrownlowMan37
29 Dec 2007, 16:40
What about every time an Aussie bowls a no ball, Bill has to bite the head off one of his pigeons
Sounds ok except for the animal cruelty bit
Thanks for providing a creepy twist to this otherwise placid thread:thumbsd:
davey_magik
29 Dec 2007, 16:43
first of all - Bill Lawry has been off his nut for the last 10 years and shouldn't even be commentating anymore. Did anyone hear his comment after Clark got Laxman "well, Stuart Clark will get the wicket, but i think it was Laxman's doing, good bowling from Clark"
WHAT BILL?!?! What drug are you on.
and a front foot no ball should be worth 2 runs.
You're an idiot.
He was referring to the fact Laxman played a poor shot and although Clark was bowling well it was a batsman error more than a great ball.
You're an idiot.
He was referring to the fact Laxman played a poor shot and although Clark was bowling well it was a batsman error more than a great ball.
so?
as far as i'm aware Clark still got the wicket, and whether Laxman played a poor shot or not, it was still Clark's doing.
never mind, i don't like arguing with people who resort to name calling that quickly
davey_magik
29 Dec 2007, 17:01
so?
as far as i'm aware Clark still got the wicket, and whether Laxman played a poor shot or not, it was still Clark's doing.
never mind, i don't like arguing with people who resort to name calling that quickly
Do you understand cricket?
It was a decent length delivery, didn't really move in the air or off the seam, and was a stock delivery from Clark, not a slower or quicker ball. Laxman played a poor shot. That is what Bill is saying, it was Laxman's doing that he got out.
1 run.
Lets not ruin cricket like we've ruined AFL.
Big John
29 Dec 2007, 18:39
I don't support the idea, but i think it would end up being a good thing for bowlers as they would stop bowling no balls very quickly. I've never understood why they all aim to have their heel right on the line. Make it easy for youself, and move your run up back 10 centimetres.
red+black
30 Dec 2007, 03:17
1 run.
Lets not ruin cricket like we've ruined AFL.
The man has a point there.
Pakistan would concede four figures in extras.
Illinois Nazi
30 Dec 2007, 12:22
Front-foot no balls = 4 runs
Bent arm straightened during delivery no balls = no penalty
stmookeyj
30 Dec 2007, 13:03
2 Runs for all NB's.
Cousin Jed
30 Dec 2007, 13:11
India v Bangladesh - Zaheer would be Bangladesh's top scorer.
ManWithNoName
30 Dec 2007, 13:22
1 run.
Lets not ruin cricket like we've ruined AFL.
Couldn't agree more.
Keyser Soze
30 Dec 2007, 15:36
You can't get a wicket with a no ball, if that isn't enough of a penalty then how will extra runs make a difference.
Happened three times in thie test match just gone.
There's really no excuse for bowling no balls -as a previous poster said just move your marker back 10cm.
Black Thunder
30 Dec 2007, 17:11
terrible terrible idea.
i'd be concerned about a quick bowler who didn't ball a no ball every 10-20 overs. unless they have a 100% set run up, it would mean they are ball too far back on the crease.
the ideal landing spot for a quick bowler is to hit the crease in the back half of your foot. this will mean bowling the occasional no ball.
it's hard to imagine a bowler hitting the back half of his foot 9 times out of 10 and not crossing the no ball line.
Bring the free hit into Test cricket.
Its a little more incentive for bowlers to get it right...
and doesn't mess with the scoring system..
matera_goal
30 Dec 2007, 20:33
I don't know cricket but the thread title is hilarious to me :p
Hehe... front foot no balls...
kidgorgeous
30 Dec 2007, 21:27
Richie Benaud seems to think that they are a colossal waste of time, they never had them at the beginning so why have them at all?
TigerCraig
31 Dec 2007, 07:31
Richie Benaud seems to think that they are a colossal waste of time, they never had them at the beginning so why have them at all?
He's wanted to go back to the back foot rule for ages