Is this a legal delivery?

[Truckosaurus]

And yet the batsman can walk around like a goose as the bowler runs in.

Double standards.

The stumps don't move though.

 

[PhatBoy]

After Chucker got away with throwing anything goes

That’s a fair point. Brett Lee really did set the standard for what should and shouldn’t be legal.

 

[PhatBoy]

Don’t really see how they can say this is distracting when someone like Paul Adams was able to bowl the way he did

 

[bird_man]

And yet the batsman can walk around like a goose as the bowler runs in.

Double standards.

Maybe so, but one is within the rules and the other isn't.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Not sure how you can dead ball this, but give someone like Paul Adams a free pass.

If you were feeling uncharitable, you could even make a case against blokes who bowled off the wrong foot - Procter, Sohail Tanvir, Matt Johnston from WA.

Agree with those making the comparison to switch hitting.

 

[eth-dog]

It's perfectly fine. So many bowlers bowl with their arms flinging around like mad men, yet a blind turn is illegal?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Some of the logic in this thread, sheesh. "How come the fielding team always handle the ball but the batting team aren't allowed? Double standard." Can't argue with that.

Umpires are compelled to call a dead ball if they think the bowler (whoever it may be) is deliberately trying to distract the batsman. End of story.

 

[PhatBoy]

Some of the logic in this thread, sheesh. "How come the fielding team always handle the ball but the batting team aren't allowed? Double standard." Can't argue with that.

Umpires are compelled to call a dead ball if they think the bowler (whoever it may be) is deliberately trying to distract the batsman. End of story.

I think everyone gets the rule, the question is why can one of the two central figures do nothing that can be deemed ‘distracting’ while the other can more or less do whatever he wants.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

 

[Teen Wolf]

I think everyone gets the rule, the question is why can one of the two central figures do nothing that can be deemed ‘distracting’ while the other can more or less do whatever he wants.

Do they get the game though. One set of players are permitted to a, b and c while the other set of players are permitted to x, y and z. The but-the-batsmen-are-allowed argument overlooks this fairly fundamental facet.

 

[PhatBoy]

Do they get the game though. One set of players are permitted to a, b and c while the other set of players are permitted to x, y and z. The but-the-batsmen-are-allowed argument overlooks this fairly fundamental facet.

I get that there are different rules for different players’ roles. It’s not like it’s unique to cricket.

The principal of this rule though is based on the premise that one player basically has to have unbroken concentration and free reign to ensure that he is permitted to execute his skill without distraction.
There is no logical reason why his direct opposite shouldn’t be given the same privilege

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The bowler controls the game

They have 100% control over their movement. They decide when they bowl. How fast. When they start running in.

The 'game' doesn't begin until they deliver the ball.

Batting is an open skill. They have to react to what is delivered.

Bowling is a closed skill.

Batting and bowling are absolute opposites which I assume is why the rules have evolved in this way.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The bowler controls the game

They have 100% control over their movement. They decide when they bowl. How fast. When they start running in.

The 'game' doesn't begin until they deliver the ball.

Batting is an open skill. They have to react to what is delivered.

Bowling is a closed skill.

Batting and bowling are absolute opposites which I assume is why the rules have evolved in this way.

Yes and no. As a bowler I may decide which ball I am going to bowl, but if a batsman decides to move in his batting stance, I may need to alter the line I was about to bowl. Seems batsmen are allowed to distract bowlers, but not the other way around.

I just wonder if this rule was considered when Funky Miller suddenly appeared at the bowling crease in blue hair. I don't know about others, but that certainly would have distracted me.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yes and no. As a bowler I may decide which ball I am going to bowl, but if a batsman decides to move in his batting stance, I may need to alter the line I was about to bowl. Seems batsmen are allowed to distract bowlers, but not the other way around.

I just wonder if this rule was considered when Funky Miller suddenly appeared at the bowling crease in blue hair. I don't know about others, but that certainly would have distracted me.

The bowler doesn't have to let go of the ball

It's 100% at the bowler's discretion

 

[KangarooUnicorn]

Not sure how you can dead ball this, but give someone like Paul Adams a free pass.

If you were feeling uncharitable, you could even make a case against blokes who bowled off the wrong foot - Procter, Sohail Tanvir, Matt Johnston from WA.

Agree with those making the comparison to switch hitting.

The players you have quoted, whilst may have had a "unique" delivery, it was still their natural delivery that they used for every ball. The action in question here is not the bowlers natural action. He has included the twirl deliberately to try and distract the batsman.

 

[Bombermania]

I don't think it should be classed as an illegal delivery but why bother, I doubt it would help the blower.