View Full Version : Nathan Hauritz and his no-balls
Sylvia Saint
21 Mar 2010, 12:30
No doubting that Hauritz has improved as a bowler, but the amount of no-balls this guy bowls is an absolute disgrace. Spinners should NEVER be bowling them, yet he bowls more no-balls than our pace attack combined.
How bloody hard is it to bowl from a metre further back? I actually think he should be called for more than he does!!! The worst part is that he's being doing it all summer (probably longer) and yet nothing seems to be done about it.
MisterB
21 Mar 2010, 13:07
What he said ^
Sylvia Saint
21 Mar 2010, 13:12
Just to back myself up for a minute, he has bowled 39 no-balls since the 1st test of the summer back in November. That would be disgraceful for even an express quick. For a spinner, well, I'm speechless!
Showbag
21 Mar 2010, 13:25
With the interpretation of the rule, the umpires are likely getting the no-ball call wrong. The rule says that you must have part of your foot behind the line. Hauritz has part of his foot behind the line (in the air) when he pivots for delivery, though the ball of his foot is the only grounded part of his foot over the line, therefore, it is not a no-ball.
Simon_Nesbit
21 Mar 2010, 13:36
Watching him bowl, I always get the feeling he's short. He's over-compensating in trying to reach maximum height on his bowling arm, which not only reduces his side-spinning ability (pure angles), but also means he bowls more on his toes, and less on the balls of his feet.
This results in a faster "turn" of the body (increasing spin, and perhaps somewhat compensating for the lesser finger/hand angle), but also means that the umpire's "cue" (can I see the white line) for no-balls is often triggered, IMO incorrectly.
How to fix it? Well the obvious is to take half-a-step back, and the fact it doesn't appear to have any consistency suggets it's not a specific delivery, so this may be the best (and simplest) option.
Not sure how his short-leg would feel about him dropping short (more) consistently as he adjusts though.
Noticed this earlier today, agreed.
year of the roo
21 Mar 2010, 14:27
With the interpretation of the rule, the umpires are likely getting the no-ball call wrong. The rule says that you must have part of your foot behind the line. Hauritz has part of his foot behind the line (in the air) when he pivots for delivery, though the ball of his foot is the only grounded part of his foot over the line, therefore, it is not a no-ball.
So? This is happening ad nauseum, surely an adjustment to his action and approach is required, rather than blaming the umpires.
larrikin
21 Mar 2010, 14:36
He's always so close to that front line. Surely 4 inches back wouldn't make much difference, especially when he's flighting them and not darting them in.
Gazza_11
21 Mar 2010, 15:58
He gets a bit unlucky. He kind of swivels his foot when he lands it, and according to the Aussie commentators (dodgy source, I know) this results in a lot of false no ball calls.
Cousin Jed
21 Mar 2010, 16:07
The Aussie commentators are wrong, if he doesn't land behind the line they are no balls.
Noticed this too. Can't recall him doing it in the ODI's when there is a free hit on offer either.
King Elvis
21 Mar 2010, 16:45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_ball
Gazza_11
21 Mar 2010, 17:05
The Aussie commentators are wrong, if he doesn't land behind the line they are no balls.
Noticed this too. Can't recall him doing it in the ODI's when there is a free hit on offer either.
Apparently what he does is land it so it's parallel to the line and then swivels it back before release.
At any rate he's a spinner though, and if he doesn't have the presence of mind to sort this out....
Simon_Nesbit
21 Mar 2010, 19:40
There's a key difference though.
The law states it has to LAND behind the crease, however an exception is made (due to the exceptional difficulty in accurately reporting/calling no-balls) that umpires look for the 'unbroken' white line. If they can see it, it's a no-ball.
This achieves a few things.
1. It's easier to call instantly than a judgement call.
2. It allows a fraction of room for bowlers.
So generally umpires are looking at where the heel breaks their line-of-sight, not where it hits the ground.
As Hauritz lands parallel to the crease, and then swivels, it's not until AFTER his delivery is completed he ends perpendicular to the crease (and often cutting the crease).
It's unreasonable to expect an umpire to wait until he finishes swivelling to make the call (too late for batsman to react), so they either have to make a pre-emptory call, or call it on impact.
called him 6 times for no-balls in a 2nd XI game 3 years ago. He still hasn't learnt.
His bowling has improved though.
In terms of judging a spinner like Hauritz who pivots though: it's a judgment call, because the first placing of his foot is when we have to call it - not after he pivots: think of a fast bowler landing behind the line then sliding a huge margin over the line (slight exaggeration - but just an example). It's tough to call, because it is such a fine line and he probably gets away with a few too. I know i've let him go a few times more than i probably should have.
Simon_Nesbit
24 Mar 2010, 19:25
Had a team-mate of mine bowled in sandshoes.
Used to 'slide' way past the line - I remember one day having an argument with an umpire who no-balled him three times in a row - after the second one I moved to mid-off so I could watch - before getting the square leg umpire to inform him of the rules regarding placement.
We all pitched in to buy him some spikes after a few games, but next week when he bowled he was still sliding around, in fact it was worse. At drinks I went to talk to him about it, turned out the spikes made his foot "stick" in the ground, so he took the spikes out, and just wore the shoes! :eek:
Crazy bloke, but jeez he was quick. Just as likely to put it wide of 3rd slip as on the pitch, but when he got it right almost unplayable.
Shaun Tait? :)
That's the problem with spikes though: they work well, but for some because of the way they run or place their feet or whatever all they do is plug their foot into the ground and go no where. i've seen a batsman try to take off for a run, get stuck then watch his body go over while his foot stayed. He was screaming out in pain something terrible, he was taken to the hospital where apparently there was no injury done at all! Must have just been the shock of it.
goalpie
29 Mar 2010, 14:05
He is a fraud. Time to bring Smith in.
PalaceGun
29 Mar 2010, 18:11
Watching him bowl, I always get the feeling he's short. He's over-compensating in trying to reach maximum height on his bowling arm, which not only reduces his side-spinning ability (pure angles), but also means he bowls more on his toes, and less on the balls of his feet.
6 foot isn't short, as someone else said he should give himself four inches.
Ill Chicken
31 Mar 2010, 15:03
From what I've been taught off-spinners are meant to bowl off their toes/pivot off that front foot.