Rule Clarification

[monty1104]

Hi all.

Hoping someone may be able to clarify something for me. I was umpiring a grade cricket game yesterday and came across a situation where I believe I was correct, but others seemed to think I was wrong.

There was a medium pacer bowling and his front foot was landing almost parallel to the popping crease (pointing almost forward backward square leg for a RHB), but over the line. On his follow through, the front foot would rotate so it was pointing straight down the crease (to the keeper). I no-balled him a couple of times as at the point of delivery his foot was not behind the popping crease. The counter argument was that because the foot rotated during the delivery stride (before the right foot came down), that it was a legal ball.

So who was right?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

You.

 

[Power Raid]

Hi all.

Hoping someone may be able to clarify something for me. I was umpiring a grade cricket game yesterday and came across a situation where I believe I was correct, but others seemed to think I was wrong.

There was a medium pacer bowling and his front foot was landing almost parallel to the popping crease (pointing almost forward backward square leg for a RHB), but over the line. On his follow through, the front foot would rotate so it was pointing straight down the crease (to the keeper). I no-balled him a couple of times as at the point of delivery his foot was not behind the popping crease. The counter argument was that because the foot rotated during the delivery stride (before the right foot came down), that it was a legal ball.

So who was right?

I can't understand their logic

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I can't understand their logic

I can't understand how the guy was bowling!

 

[monty1104]

I can't understand how the guy was bowling!

Yeah it was so odd. He had almost an off spinner's action, really closed off stance but bowled reasonably quick and very straight.

 

[The Passenger]

I would love to see (or maybe not) the state of that guys left knee.

 

[Phone]

I can't understand how the guy was bowling!

Nathan Hauritz did something similar iirc

 

[Smoooothy]

Did any of this dude's foot land behind the line at all?

Remember, it's always where it lands, not where it ends up

 

[sherb]

It's where the foot lands these days, not where it is at the point of delivery.

That would make it a no-ball.

*I think..................

 

[monty1104]

Did any of this dude's foot land behind the line at all?

Remember, it's always where it lands, not where it ends up

Nah it landed over then ended up behind when it rotated

 

[Smoooothy]

Nah it landed over then ended up behind when it rotated

You're in the clear then IMO

 

[sherb]

Nah it landed over then ended up behind when it rotated

No-ball then.

Here's the rule, I'll let you interpret it.

5. Fair delivery - the feet

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride,

(a) the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his stated mode of delivery.


(b) the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised

(i) on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in (a) above and (ii) behind the popping crease.

If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

 

[monty1104]

I think the wording of "delivery stride" is where confusion came in. In his delivery stride, he ended up behind the crease, but he landed over it.

I should also point out that I play for the batting team (in our division, the batting team provides the umpires) and so was accused of being biased.

 

[sherb]

I think the wording of "delivery stride" is where confusion came in. In his delivery stride, he ended up behind the crease, but he landed over it.

I should also point out that I play for the batting team (in our division, the batting team provides the umpires) and so was accused of being biased.

The point is that the law specifically states it is where the foot lands - ie movement of the foot after that is irrelevant.

It used to be where the foot was at the point of delivery.

You were correct in my view.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

So long as when the front foot landed no part was behind the crease, it was a no-ball. That some may have been behind had he placed the feet at a different angle is irrelevant.

It is no more relevant that the fact that some part would also have landed behind the line had he, well, placed part of his foot behind the line.

 

[monty1104]

Thanks for all the clarification guys. Umpiring is something I actually think I'm fairly good at, and given i bat at 11, I pretty much umpire every match. Eventually (once age catches up with me) I see myself umpiring for the league instead of playing. I always pride myself on knowing the rules so to have people question me on something kinda got to me.

 

[sherb]

Thanks for all the clarification guys. Umpiring is something I actually think I'm fairly good at, and given i bat at 11, I pretty much umpire every match. Eventually (once age catches up with me) I see myself umpiring for the league instead of playing. I always pride myself on knowing the rules so to have people question me on something kinda got to me.

The other thing is that sometimes laws have to state the bleeding obvious.

When the law stated that the position of the feet at the point of delivery was the criteria, there was no real need to mention the delivery stride.

But now it is worded as where the feet land, the law has to specify at what stage in the run up it is referring to. While it is common sense that it means the delivery stride, the law would still have to state it.

*In my opinion......

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Sounds like they are getting confused with the more common scenario of the foot landing behind the line but then sliding/rotating and finishing up over it.