Finn and dead balls

[Uday Rajan]

Do the denizens of rsc have any comments on the umpires' decision to call "Dead Ball" on Finn each time he knocked off the bails at the bowler's end? The MCC apparently released a press statement which suggested that the statement issuer disagreed with the calls.
--------
Smith hit two subsequent balls for four when Finn had broken the wicket but the runs were disallowed as dead ball had been called. If the striker really feels he is distracted, he can try to pull away and make no attempt to play the ball, although this may not always be possible with a fast bowler like Finn.
--------

Here is the CI article which quotes the MCC statement:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-south-africa-2012/content/current/story/575278.html

[jzfredricks]

Yeah, I have a comment - bloody excellent, and about time.
I think it should be a NO BALL! (I've been saying this on RSC for some time now).

Quick thinking batsman can now get, essentially, a free hit. Have a swing, get out, claim distraction and "demand" a dead-ball. Hit a 6, and it would seem unfair to the ump to decide that you were distracted, call a dead-ball, and negate the 6.

Rules will have to change. Just make it a no ball and be done with it.

[alvey]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan wrote:

> Do the denizens of rsc have any comments on the umpires' decision to call "Dead Ball" on Finn each time he knocked off the bails at the bowler's end?

Yes. It should be a no ball. Unless of course it's within the
official ICC tolerance of 179 degrees.

And aother thing that should be rectified by the excessively
batscum-friendly Laws subhuman-committee is stopping the
non-striker from leaving early. Since this committee fucked it up
last time it's now de rigeur for the snivelling ponce at the NSE
to be a minimum of a metre out of their ground when the ball is
released. How can this be fair? Arseholes.


alvey

[Andrew Dunford]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31c86b68-58de-40b7...@googlegroups.com...

I'd quite happy for the Laws to be changed to make this either a Dead Ball
or a No Ball - I don't really care which. If I'm umpiring and the wind
blows the bails off while the bowler is running in to bowl (which being in
Wellington, happens all the time), I call Dead Ball and this situation is
not a great deal different.

However the situation we saw on day one at Headingley is a nonsense. The
idea that the umpire can decide in advance that the batsman has been
distracted is silly, as we saw a couple of times when Smith whacked the ball
to the boundary.

Andrew

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 3, 6:10 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:

> However the situation we saw on day one at Headingley is a nonsense.  The
> idea that the umpire can decide in advance that the batsman has been
> distracted is silly, as we saw a couple of times when Smith whacked the ball
> to the boundary.

Smith had had a word with the umpires the first couple of times it
happened. It seems to me that SA had anticipated this and decided in
advance how to handle it. It was a given that Finn was going to knock
the bails off. So they decide that as soon as it happens they tell the
umpires it's distracting (even if it isn't) and presto! they have a
way of niggling the bowler and England.

I heard Atherton reading a clarification message yesterday (from the
MCC, under whose auspices this match is not being played so how they
got involved is beyond me - unless Atherton made a slip of the
tongue). According to said message on the the first and and second
such incidents SA complained to the umpires. The umpires then told
Finn and Strauss that unless Finn changed his approach so that he
wasn't knocking the bails off they would start dead balling him. Said
message insisted that a further warning was given and then on the 4th
such incident dead ball was called and nobody should have been
surprised.

I think the complaints to the ump were premeditated, something that SA
came up with at a team talk. Since they protested that they found the
stump-knocking distracting the umpires can hardly be blamed.

It seemed that Finn only had the problem from one end. Something to do
with running down the hill?

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 10:54:55 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:10 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > However the situation we saw on day one at Headingley is a nonsense.  The
>
> > idea that the umpire can decide in advance that the batsman has been
>
> > distracted is silly, as we saw a couple of times when Smith whacked the ball
>
> > to the boundary.
>
>
>
> Smith had had a word with the umpires the first couple of times it
>
> happened. It seems to me that SA had anticipated this and decided in
>
> advance how to handle it. It was a given that Finn was going to knock
>
> the bails off. So they decide that as soon as it happens they tell the
>
> umpires it's distracting (even if it isn't) and presto! they have a
>
> way of niggling the bowler and England.

Yeah that was smart play...Smith basically wanted to take the LBW out of the equation by having Finn come a little wider off the stumps. Or maybe not. In any case I don't find anything wrong with what the saffers did

>
>
>
> I heard Atherton reading a clarification message yesterday (from the
>
> MCC, under whose auspices this match is not being played so how they
>
> got involved is beyond me - unless Atherton made a slip of the
>
> tongue).

I think it is because the whole thing involved the laws of the game and the MCC is the custodian of the laws

According to said message on the the first and and second
>
> such incidents SA complained to the umpires. The umpires then told
>
> Finn and Strauss that unless Finn changed his approach so that he
>
> wasn't knocking the bails off they would start dead balling him. Said
>
> message insisted that a further warning was given and then on the 4th
>
> such incident dead ball was called and nobody should have been
>
> surprised.
>
>
>
> I think the complaints to the ump were premeditated, something that SA
>
> came up with at a team talk. Since they protested that they found the
>
> stump-knocking distracting the umpires can hardly be blamed.
>
>
>
> It seemed that Finn only had the problem from one end. Something to do
>
> with running down the hill?

I didn't know Headingley had that hill thing too

Overall I think it is fair game to warn the bowler once or twice (while declaring those instances as dead balls) and anymore such incidents should be no-balled

[tendulkar.com]

Not sound logic. It's like saying a ball can't be a No-Ball because the batsmen scored a four. You can be distracted and still hit the ball to a four.

[Bob Martin]

I didn't hear anyone mention it on live commentary but surely a broken
wicket must be no-balled because it makes a subsequent run-out more difficult.

[dechucka]

"Uday Rajan" <uday...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7d7d0080-e8a1-4836...@googlegroups.com...

I say leave the law as it is. It is to the bowling teams disadvantage

[dechucka]

"Bob Martin" <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:a819dj...@mid.individual.net...

The fielding team caused it so bad luck. Also bad luck if the wind blows the
bails off once the the ball is "alive"

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 3, 7:52 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

> I didn't know Headingley had that hill thing too

Yes. In line with the pitch so the bowlers are always coming up hill
(from one end) or down hill (from the other). Brearley observed that
some bowlers overstep or lose their balance coming down the hill,
though generally the quicks like it because they think they get a
little bit more speed. Others had trouble bowling up the hill because
they'd pitch too short.

>
> Overall I think it is fair game to warn the bowler once or twice (while declaring those instances as dead balls) and anymore such incidents should be no-balled

They can't no-ball for something that distracts the batsman. They just
call dead ball and the distraction is neutralised.

[dechucka]

"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:28340f9e-6efb-464a...@l30g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

============================================

Swan wasn't distracted to much it seems

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 3, 8:29 am, Bob Martin <bob.mar...@excite.com> wrote:

THat's the fielding side's problem. Besides, the laws make provision
for run outs when the stumps are disturbed.

[John Hall]

In article
<19b44878-2172-4bb0...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com> writes:
>I heard Atherton reading a clarification message yesterday (from the
>MCC, under whose auspices this match is not being played so how they
>got involved is beyond me

They are involved because they are the custodians of the Laws - so in a
sense every formal game of cricket is played under their auspices.

> - unless Atherton made a slip of the
>tongue). According to said message on the the first and and second
>such incidents SA complained to the umpires. The umpires then told
>Finn and Strauss that unless Finn changed his approach so that he
>wasn't knocking the bails off they would start dead balling him. Said
>message insisted that a further warning was given and then on the 4th
>such incident dead ball was called and nobody should have been
>surprised.

Then that seems fair enough to me.

This was something that was bound to happen sooner or later, and I'm
surprised that Finn's coach hasn't got him to stop hitting the stumps
before this.
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

[Mike Holmans]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>I heard Atherton reading a clarification message yesterday (from the
>MCC, under whose auspices this match is not being played so how they
>got involved is beyond me - unless Atherton made a slip of the
>tongue).

When you have a question about how the Laws are to be interpreted, MCC
are the people who clarify what the Laws mean and what the Laws say
has to be done.

If the people running a competition then don't like the consequences
of the Laws being interpreted that way, then they can introduce a new
playing condition for their competition so that the situation is the
way they prefer it.

MCC have therefore delivered their opinion that what went on was
within the Laws of Cricket and everybody behaved properly, and in
particular that the call of "dead ball" is appropriate under the
current Laws.

If ICC then take the view that bowlers should be allowed or even
encouraged to knock over the stumps with their knees, or conversely
that it should be considered a gross infringement which calls for a
five-run penalty, then ICC are free to specify a playing condition to
vary the Laws for that purpose.

Cheers,

Mike, feeling somewhat better after a miserable couple of weeks of
excruciating dental problems
--

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 3, 12:23 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery

> <megap...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>
> >I heard Atherton reading a clarification message yesterday (from the
> >MCC, under whose auspices this match is not being played so how they
> >got involved is beyond me - unless Atherton made a slip of the
> >tongue).
>
> When you have a question about how the Laws are to be interpreted, MCC
> are the people who clarify what the Laws mean and what the Laws say
> has to be done.

Sure, but what surprised me was that they seemed to know a lot about
the exact sequence of events - who said what to who. I don't disagree
with their ruling, but the match was being played under ICC playing
conditions (though that particular law is not changed) so it's not
their bailiwick and they did seem to have a lot of information about
the on-field events.

Or did they?

Some members of the England team have offered an alternate version of
events which has the umps talking to Finn but just in vague terms and
not saying anything about dead balling. This might explain the look on
Strauss's face, though if the umpires had said specifically that the
batsmen were being distracted they might have assumed that Finn and/or
Strauss knew under the laws a dead ball call was the outcome to be
expected.

AB de Villiers has said that Finn was specifically warned about dead
ball calls, though how he'd know is beyond me.

[Vijay Sharma]

I am proposing the no-ball for repeat offenders not for an occasional occurrence. If a bowler is repeatedly doing it then you first warn him (say twice) and if he still doesn't do something to rectify his run-up then no-ball him. How many times are you going to keep dead-balling? What if a bowler falls into a rhythm where he does it once or twice every over - it is an unnecessary waste of time. No-balling would force the captain and the bowler to take measures to improve the situation

[Bharat Rao]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 12:10:12 AM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:

> > Quick thinking batsman can now get, essentially, a free hit. Have a swing,
>
> > get out, claim distraction and "demand" a dead-ball. Hit a 6, and it would
>
> > seem unfair to the ump to decide that you were distracted, call a
>
> > dead-ball, and negate the 6.
>
> >
>
> > Rules will have to change. Just make it a no ball and be done with it.
>
>
>
> I'd quite happy for the Laws to be changed to make this either a Dead Ball
>
> or a No Ball - I don't really care which. If I'm umpiring and the wind
>
> blows the bails off while the bowler is running in to bowl (which being in
>
> Wellington, happens all the time), I call Dead Ball and this situation is
>
> not a great deal different.
>
>
>
> However the situation we saw on day one at Headingley is a nonsense. The
>
> idea that the umpire can decide in advance that the batsman has been
>
> distracted is silly, as we saw a couple of times when Smith whacked the ball
>
> to the boundary.
>

I think it is a distraction.

I'm fine with "its a dead ball if the batsman is out -- its in play if he hits the balls and scores runs." Simpler, would just be to call it a no-ball.

Not to mention, -- and also gives a bowler an unfair advantage -- he gets closer to the center of the wicket than he should. Its exactly analogous, IMO, to a bowler overstepping by 1/2 an inch...

Bharat

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 3, 2:26 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > They can't no-ball for something that distracts the batsman. They just
>
> > call dead ball and the distraction is neutralised.
>
> I am proposing the no-ball for repeat offenders not for an occasional occurrence. If a bowler is repeatedly doing it then you first warn him (say twice) and if he still doesn't do something to rectify his run-up then no-ball him. How many times are you going to keep dead-balling? What if a bowler falls into a rhythm where he does it once or twice every over - it is an unnecessary waste of time. No-balling would force the captain and the bowler to take measures to improve the situation

Well maybe. The rules don't allow for it. Or do they? There's the bit
about the umps being the sole judges of what is fair and unfair play.
This was infamously invoked by Cyril Mitchley who, in "Atherton's
Test" warned Cork for persistent leg (and outside leg) bowling and
then started no-balling him. Mitchley caught some flak for that, and,
really, running into the stumps every now and then is not in the same
league of "unfairness". For a start it's probably not voluntary.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 04:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

Hmm. I don't think that "voluntary" really works as an argument: I
think I'd argue that overstepping wasn't exacty voluntary, and that's
a definite no-ball.

But it seems to me that "dead ball" is sufficient penalty. Because it
*is* a penalty as the bowler has to bowl another ball. If he does it
over and over again, he could end up doing 12 deliveries to the over,
which would soon tire him out.

And even then, it shouldn't be invoked on a first offence. Plenty of
bowlers occasionally get a bit close to the stumps and take a bail off
with their hand - what Finn does is very rare.

I doubt any batsman would be distracted the first time it happened,
either. But just as we spectators can end up being drawn to watch his
knee rather than anything else, I can see how a batsman would start
watching it too.

This isn't the first time Finn's action has ended up being more
interesting than what happens at the other end: wasn't it last year he
spent his time falling over after every other delivery?

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 4, 2:34 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 04:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery

> >Well maybe. The rules don't allow for it. Or do they? There's the bit
> >about the umps being the sole judges of what is fair and unfair play.
> >This was infamously invoked by Cyril Mitchley who, in "Atherton's
> >Test" warned Cork for persistent leg (and outside leg) bowling and
> >then started no-balling him. Mitchley caught some flak for that, and,
> >really, running into the stumps every now and then is not in the same
> >league of "unfairness". For a start it's probably not voluntary.
>
> Hmm. I don't think that "voluntary" really works as an argument: I
> think I'd argue that overstepping wasn't exacty voluntary, and that's
> a definite no-ball.

True. One could, in fact, argue that all three acts fall under the
heading "things the bowler can be expected to control".

>
> But it seems to me that "dead ball" is sufficient penalty. Because it
> *is* a penalty as the bowler has to bowl another ball. If he does it
> over and over again, he could end up doing 12 deliveries to the over,
> which would soon tire him out.

And start putting pressure on his captain RE the over rate.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 3, 7:39 pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 12:10:12 AM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > > Quick thinking batsman can now get, essentially, a free hit. Have a swing,
>
> > > get out, claim distraction and "demand" a dead-ball. Hit a 6, and it would
>
> > > seem unfair to the ump to decide that you were distracted, call a
>
> > > dead-ball, and negate the 6.
>
> > > Rules will have to change. Just make it a no ball and be done with it.
>
> > I'd quite happy for the Laws to be changed to make this either a Dead Ball
>
> > or a No Ball - I don't really care which.  If I'm umpiring and the wind
>
> > blows the bails off while the bowler is running in to bowl (which being in
>
> > Wellington, happens all the time), I call Dead Ball and this situation is
>
> > not a great deal different.
>
> > However the situation we saw on day one at Headingley is a nonsense.  The
>
> > idea that the umpire can decide in advance that the batsman has been
>
> > distracted is silly, as we saw a couple of times when Smith whacked the ball
>
> > to the boundary.
>
> I think it is a distraction.
>
> I'm fine with "its a dead ball if the batsman is out -- its in play if he hits the balls and scores runs."  Simpler, would just be to call it a no-ball.

Ermmm.... no. A batsman can still score off a no-ball, he just can't
be bowled or caught out. If the problem is alleged distraction of the
batsman then giving him a free hit is letting him have his bread
buttered on both sides. He knows he can go for the big shot at no risk
when, allegedly, he is distracted.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 06:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery

<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Aug 4, 2:34 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 04:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
>
>> >Well maybe. The rules don't allow for it. Or do they? There's the bit
>> >about the umps being the sole judges of what is fair and unfair play.
>> >This was infamously invoked by Cyril Mitchley who, in "Atherton's
>> >Test" warned Cork for persistent leg (and outside leg) bowling and
>> >then started no-balling him. Mitchley caught some flak for that, and,
>> >really, running into the stumps every now and then is not in the same
>> >league of "unfairness". For a start it's probably not voluntary.
>>
>> Hmm. I don't think that "voluntary" really works as an argument: I
>> think I'd argue that overstepping wasn't exacty voluntary, and that's
>> a definite no-ball.
>
>True. One could, in fact, argue that all three acts fall under the
>heading "things the bowler can be expected to control".

Yes, but only over-stepping is actually illegal.

It would seem bizarre to me for a bowler to deliberately knock the
stumps with knee, hand, or any other body part (one could imagine Paul
Adams headbutting the stumps, for instance), but I could certainly see
a justification for no-balling someone who did do it deliberately
under law 42.

But I really can't see how you can no-ball someone for making a
mistake which is nowhere specified as being illegal.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:09:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> It would seem bizarre to me for a bowler to deliberately knock the
> stumps with knee, hand, or any other body part (one could imagine Paul
> Adams headbutting the stumps, for instance), but I could certainly see
> a justification for no-balling someone who did do it deliberately
> under law 42.
>
> But I really can't see how you can no-ball someone for making a
> mistake which is nowhere specified as being illegal.

If a bowler WANTS to bump the stumps, should he be allowed to do so?

The answer is no. Some batsman DO find it distracting, and I think unfairly so. If you agree that some find it distracting, then the Laws should be framed assuming ALL batsman find it distracting.

I hate what I call "intent based Laws", ie ones where we expect the umpire to read a player's mind. This is similar, as we're expecting the ump to decide if the event was distracting.
It might seem ok to take the stance of "if a wicket falls, call it dead ball, and if a boundary is hit, call that dead too", but what about a dot ball? Should that be called dead and rebowled? What about a dot ball off the final delivery in an ODO where 1 run was needed to tie the game? Rebowl that?

Either call ALL bumps a dead ball (ie regardless of outcome) or make it illegal and call them no-balls.
The problem with the former is it can turn a match winning situation (a 6 hit to win) into a losing situation (a wicket on the re-bowl).

The bowler is doing something that is distracting, so the batsman should not be disadvantaged.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:02:04 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:09:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> It would seem bizarre to me for a bowler to deliberately knock the
>> stumps with knee, hand, or any other body part (one could imagine Paul
>> Adams headbutting the stumps, for instance), but I could certainly see
>> a justification for no-balling someone who did do it deliberately
>> under law 42.
>>
>> But I really can't see how you can no-ball someone for making a
>> mistake which is nowhere specified as being illegal.
>
>If a bowler WANTS to bump the stumps, should he be allowed to do so?
>
>The answer is no. Some batsman DO find it distracting, and I think unfairly so. If you agree that some find it distracting, then the Laws should be framed assuming ALL batsman find it distracting.

As usual, you want to elevate a minor problem (in this case with one
bowler's run-up) in Test cricket to a breach of fundamental legal
principle, and your proposed remedy in this case is a recipe for
untold disputes and opportunities for skulduggery in club cricket.

All a bowler who gets hit for six has to do is knock the bail with his
finger and say to the umpire "Oh, look, that should have been a dead
ball because I knocked the stumps."

Why don't you get your head out of your theoretical arse and visit the
practical world of common sense once in a way? You might find it
strangely enlightening.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:04:49 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> As usual, you want to elevate a minor problem (in this case with one
> bowler's run-up) in Test cricket to a breach of fundamental legal
> principle, and your proposed remedy in this case is a recipe for
> untold disputes and opportunities for skulduggery in club cricket.

I can't see how. If you think about it for more than 2 seconds, you'll realise that of ALL the no-ball Laws, this would be the one with the LEAST cause for complaint.
It would be the most black and white no-ball Law - bowler knocks a bail off it's a no ball. How could any team complain about that? The only cause for concern is a non-striker knocking the stumps. I'm pretty sure umps could deal with that.

> All a bowler who gets hit for six has to do is knock the bail with his
> finger and say to the umpire "Oh, look, that should have been a dead
> ball because I knocked the stumps."

I can only assume you're still on sedatives.
If this did happen, under my proposed automatic no-ball Law, it would be a no-ball 6!
If this did happen, under my proposed automatic dead-ball Law.. well... it would rely on the umpire to notice if the bowler knocked the stumps during delivery. If a player is going to cheat I'd hope the umps stop it.

But as usual, you miss the point.
If a player IS distracted, and does get out, and it's NOT called dead-ball (under the current Laws) that's simply not fair. Especially when making it a no-ball has absolutely zero cost or negatives.

If you agree with the current dead-ball Law, it means you agree that it *can be* distracting.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 00:28:33 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:04:49 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> As usual, you want to elevate a minor problem (in this case with one
>> bowler's run-up) in Test cricket to a breach of fundamental legal
>> principle, and your proposed remedy in this case is a recipe for
>> untold disputes and opportunities for skulduggery in club cricket.
>
>I can't see how. If you think about it for more than 2 seconds, you'll realise that of ALL the no-ball Laws, this would be the one with the LEAST cause for complaint.
>It would be the most black and white no-ball Law - bowler knocks a bail off it's a no ball. How could any team complain about that? The only cause for concern is a non-striker knocking the stumps. I'm pretty sure umps could deal with that.

I'm sorry for misreading your idea. I couldn't believe that you'd be
stupid enough to propose no-balling rather than dead-balling.

So it's a windy day. Bails occasionally fall off, blown by the wind.
One happens to fall off at the non-striker's end during the bowler's
delivery. Endless rows as the bowler says "but I never touched it".
Now that you're no-balling people, you probably end up with "wind
stops play" because the teams refuse to carry on when the umpires are
awarding no-balls on an almost random basis.

Luckily, MCC are a playing club, playing more games per year than any
other club in the world, and they wouldn't be daft enough to adopt a
law change which would - like most of your proposals - be a possible
slight improvement for the viewer who watches the top 0.001% of
cricket which can be seen on his TV at home but would lead to lots of
problems for the 99.999% of games which get played around the world by
actual cricketers.

If you don't like intent-based laws, don't watch cricket and don't
take part in real life (in which you may have noticed that where
achieving a conviction in just about every crime which attracts a
custodial sentence requires the prosecution to prove malice as well as
the fact that the accused did it). Follow something where "I didn't
mean it" never comes into it, like chess or sudoku.

Cheers,

Mike


--

[Andrew B]

On 05/08/2012 14:02, Mike Holmans wrote:

> Follow something where "I didn't
> mean it" never comes into it, like chess or sudoku.

Better make it sudoku - the touch-move rule in chess involves intent.

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 11:02:01 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:

That's all you've got? The wind might blow the bails off?
Lame, even by your standards.

Perhaps the ICC will sort it out if the MCC can't.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:30:42 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 11:02:01 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>That's all you've got? The wind might blow the bails off?
>Lame, even by your standards.

Oh, don't be so fucking stupid. (As it happens, the Laws already
contain extensive coverage of issues caused by wind, so those who
actually frame them don't think it's a lame issue at all.)

You want to change the Laws of Cricket because one bowler in a couple
of Test matches has had a bit of a problem with his run-up, and it's
got a bit annoying for some of the batsmen.

Why don't you carry on and say it should be a no-ball if the bowler
falls over after delivering, as Finn used to do? I'm sure that got a
bit distracting as well.

Then we'll have no-balling bowlers because their handkerchief falls
out of their back pocket.

It's a game. Played by human beings. They make the odd mistake. Rules
of games tend to assume that people want to play the game properly and
don't start being ridiculous if they are less than perfect. You, on
the other hand, want to take any minor grey area of minuscule
significance and blow it up into a cause celebre which demands major
changes in the rules.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:54:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> You want to change the Laws of Cricket because one bowler in a couple
> of Test matches has had a bit of a problem with his run-up, and it's
> got a bit annoying for some of the batsmen.

Hardly. I've been calling for this change for a while.

> Why don't you carry on and say it should be a no-ball if the bowler
> falls over after delivering, as Finn used to do? I'm sure that got a
> bit distracting as well.

I'd be happy if this was also called no-ball.

If the bowler does something that is considered a distraction, then yes, call it a no-ball. Doing so punishes the person causing the distraction. Under the current Laws, the person who is being distracted might be "punished". For example Smith's 4s on Day 1.

> Then we'll have no-balling bowlers because their handkerchief falls
> out of their back pocket.

Good. Now you're starting to understand.

> It's a game. Played by human beings. They make the odd mistake. Rules
> of games tend to assume that people want to play the game properly and
> don't start being ridiculous if they are less than perfect.

Even by your standards, a crap argument.
Cricket is full of Laws that don't allow for "the odd mistake". Opps, sorry, my front foot just went over slightly. Opps, sorry, my back foot touched the edge of the pitch. Why would it be such a perversion of justice to add "oops, sorry, knocked the bails off whilst bowling" to that list of mistakes?

The problem with the current Laws is it relies on the Umpire to properly judge if the batsman was distracted by the bowler's action. If I crack it for 6, how can defend me (as a batsman) by calling it a dead ball?

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 6:39:33 AM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> The problem with the current Laws is it relies on the Umpire to properly judge if the batsman was distracted by the bowler's action. If I crack it for 6, how can defend me (as a batsman) by calling it a dead ball?

And I know this is a question that you always refuse to answer, but I'll try again in the hope that one day you put your money where your mouth is..

If you were training umpires, how would you instruct them with respect to the current Law? If a trainee ump asked "how do I work out if it was an unfair distraction?" what would you say?

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:39:33 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:54:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> You want to change the Laws of Cricket because one bowler in a couple
>> of Test matches has had a bit of a problem with his run-up, and it's
>> got a bit annoying for some of the batsmen.
>
>Hardly. I've been calling for this change for a while.

You've been calling for this change since well before Finn's problem
appeared? In that case, I'm sorry. If not, then your definition of
"for a while" is pretty lax.

>
>> Why don't you carry on and say it should be a no-ball if the bowler
>> falls over after delivering, as Finn used to do? I'm sure that got a
>> bit distracting as well.
>
>I'd be happy if this was also called no-ball.

Good for you. I doubt anyone in the real world would.

>> Then we'll have no-balling bowlers because their handkerchief falls
>> out of their back pocket.
>
>Good. Now you're starting to understand.

If you mean I'm starting to understand that you are a lunatic, then
you're wrong. I was pretty sure of it some time ago.

Plonk, by the way.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58f86a39-3616-4467...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:04:49 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> As usual, you want to elevate a minor problem (in this case with one
>> bowler's run-up) in Test cricket to a breach of fundamental legal
>> principle, and your proposed remedy in this case is a recipe for
>> untold disputes and opportunities for skulduggery in club cricket.
>
> I can't see how. If you think about it for more than 2 seconds, you'll
> realise that of ALL the no-ball Laws, this would be the one with the LEAST
> cause for complaint.
> It would be the most black and white no-ball Law - bowler knocks a bail
> off it's a no ball. How could any team complain about that? The only cause
> for concern is a non-striker knocking the stumps. I'm pretty sure umps
> could deal with that.

Nobody has said why it should be a no-ball or a dead ball Swann Hitting a
six shows what a distraction it was. Is it a dead ball if a fieldsman
"accidently knocks the bails off getting into position behind the stumps?

>
>> All a bowler who gets hit for six has to do is knock the bail with his
>> finger and say to the umpire "Oh, look, that should have been a dead
>> ball because I knocked the stumps."
>
> I can only assume you're still on sedatives.
> If this did happen, under my proposed automatic no-ball Law, it would be a
> no-ball 6!
> If this did happen, under my proposed automatic dead-ball Law.. well... it
> would rely on the umpire to notice if the bowler knocked the stumps during
> delivery. If a player is going to cheat I'd hope the umps stop it.

it isn't cheating

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:aa341ebb-9a18-4167...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 11:02:01 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> That's all you've got? The wind might blow the bails off?
> Lame, even by your standards.

a very good point

>
> Perhaps the ICC will sort it out if the MCC can't.

nothing to sought out

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:de872bbe-1d69-4f1a...@googlegroups.com...

Like a lot of situations when umpiring it is "use your common sense in light
of the laws".

[Unknown]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

It's any distraction at all. A distraction is unfair if it is
deliberate.
The batsman will withdraw from the shot if he has been distracted.
Smith didn't look in the least distracted either when he got out, or
cracked those fours.
It's a non issue.
Also if a batsman withdraws from a delivery, and then decides to hit
the ball and that ball is caught - the batsman will be out caught.
What's the problem? Davis screwed up, painted himself into a dead ball
corner.When SA suggested Finn's action was distracting them, Davis
should have informed them that they don't have to play at the ball if
they have been distracted. He removed the chance of a wicket from a
fair delivery, disallowed runs from a fair delivery. Just because a
batsman says that something is distracting doesn't mean he has been
distracted by it.

max.it

[dechucka]

"max.it" wrote in message news:501ee714...@news.btinternet.com...

good post

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 7:53:54 AM UTC+10, dechucka wrote:
> > If this did happen, under my proposed automatic dead-ball Law.. well... it
> > would rely on the umpire to notice if the bowler knocked the stumps during
> > delivery. If a player is going to cheat I'd hope the umps stop it.
> it isn't cheating

I suggested 2 changes, either making it (bowler knocking the bails off during delivery) an automatic dead-ball, or an automatic no-ball.

The "cheating" scenario put forward* by Mike is under the former, ie;

Bowler bowls and doesn't knock the bails
Batsman hits it for 6
Bowler deliberately knocks bails off and says "I knocked it off during my delivery, that should be an automatic dead-ball"

That certainly WOULD be cheating.

* he put forward the scenario, it was I that called it cheating

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a036d62b-c546-45c4...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, August 6, 2012 7:53:54 AM UTC+10, dechucka wrote:
>> > If this did happen, under my proposed automatic dead-ball Law.. well...
>> > it
>> > would rely on the umpire to notice if the bowler knocked the stumps
>> > during
>> > delivery. If a player is going to cheat I'd hope the umps stop it.
>> it isn't cheating
>
> I suggested 2 changes, either making it (bowler knocking the bails off
> during delivery) an automatic dead-ball, or an automatic no-ball.

and I suggest that no change should be made

>
> The "cheating" scenario put forward* by Mike is under the former, ie;
>
> Bowler bowls and doesn't knock the bails
> Batsman hits it for 6
> Bowler deliberately knocks bails off and says "I knocked it off during my
> delivery, that should be an automatic dead-ball"
>
> That certainly WOULD be cheating.
>
> * he put forward the scenario, it was I that called it cheating

ok

[Andrew Dunford]

"Bharat Rao" <rao.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96c3aa3e-8ae3-4996...@googlegroups.com...

I agree it may give the bowler the advantage of being more central, but
equally it may be considered a significant disadvantage to unexpectedly bang
into a piece of wood during delivery.

As 23.4(b)(iv) already makes provision for the ball becoming dead if a bail
falls at the striker's end before the striker has had the opportunity of
playing the ball, it would be tidy to extend this to cover the wicket at
both ends.

Andrew

[Andrew Dunford]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:noCdnUC_hdTrdoPN...@westnet.com.au...

>
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:58f86a39-3616-4467...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:04:49 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> As usual, you want to elevate a minor problem (in this case with one
>>> bowler's run-up) in Test cricket to a breach of fundamental legal
>>> principle, and your proposed remedy in this case is a recipe for
>>> untold disputes and opportunities for skulduggery in club cricket.
>>
>> I can't see how. If you think about it for more than 2 seconds, you'll
>> realise that of ALL the no-ball Laws, this would be the one with the
>> LEAST cause for complaint.
>> It would be the most black and white no-ball Law - bowler knocks a bail
>> off it's a no ball. How could any team complain about that? The only
>> cause for concern is a non-striker knocking the stumps. I'm pretty sure
>> umps could deal with that.
>
> Nobody has said why it should be a no-ball or a dead ball Swann Hitting a
> six shows what a distraction it was. Is it a dead ball if a fieldsman
> "accidently knocks the bails off getting into position behind the stumps?

Any fieldsman moving near enough to the stumps at the bowler's end to
dislodge the bails prior to delivery is likely to be in the way of both the
bowler and the umpire; if the bails are removed at the striker's end before
he plays the ball then Dead Ball will be called.

<snip>

Andrew

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:07:17 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> >If you were training umpires, how would you instruct them with respect to the current Law? If a trainee ump asked "how do I work out if it was an unfair distraction?" what would you say?
>
> It's any distraction at all. A distraction is unfair if it is
> deliberate.

We're on the same page here - the intent of the bowler doesn't matter, ie deliberate and accidental distractions are both dead-balls. (and no-balls under my proposal)

> The batsman will withdraw from the shot if he has been distracted.

I'm not so sure about this. I think it's unfair to assume that all batsman know that they MUST pull out when distracted, especially against fast bowlers. Some time there's just not time.

> Smith didn't look in the least distracted either when he got out, or
> cracked those fours.
> It's a non issue.

Do you think those 4s should have been called dead?

> Also if a batsman withdraws from a delivery, and then decides to hit
> the ball and that ball is caught - the batsman will be out caught.

> What's the problem? Davis screwed up, painted himself into a dead ball
> corner.When SA suggested Finn's action was distracting them, Davis
> should have informed them that they don't have to play at the ball if
> they have been distracted. He removed the chance of a wicket from a
> fair delivery, disallowed runs from a fair delivery. Just because a
> batsman says that something is distracting doesn't mean he has been
> distracted by it.

Ah. That answers it. You think Davis made mistakes in calling them dead-ball.
I still don't think this ruling should absolutely require the batsman to make it clear he was distracted by pulling out of the shot.

What about a spin bowler falling over? Should that be considered a distraction? That would give the batsman even less time to pull out.

[dechucka]

"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:a88e3c...@mid.individual.net...

sorry was discussing when the ball was in play after the delivery

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 9:32:37 AM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > Nobody has said why it should be a no-ball or a dead ball Swann Hitting a
> > six shows what a distraction it was. Is it a dead ball if a fieldsman
> > "accidently knocks the bails off getting into position behind the stumps?
>
> Any fieldsman moving near enough to the stumps at the bowler's end to
> dislodge the bails prior to delivery is likely to be in the way of both the
> bowler and the umpire; if the bails are removed at the striker's end before
> he plays the ball then Dead Ball will be called.

I have a strange feeling that he was talking about general play, rather than during the delivery.
It was his attempt to win the Monthly RSC Strawman Award.

[Unknown]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 16:35:25 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:07:17 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
>> >If you were training umpires, how would you instruct them with respect to the current Law? If a trainee ump asked "how do I work out if it was an unfair distraction?" what would you say?
>>
>> It's any distraction at all. A distraction is unfair if it is
>> deliberate.
>
>We're on the same page here - the intent of the bowler doesn't matter, ie deliberate and accidental distractions are both dead-balls. (and no-balls under my proposal)

dead ball to begin with, deliberate distraction carries a penalty.

>
>> The batsman will withdraw from the shot if he has been distracted.
>
>I'm not so sure about this. I think it's unfair to assume that all batsman know that they MUST pull out when distracted, especially against fast bowlers.
>Some time there's just not time.

If a bowler bumping the stumps at the other end is bowling 90+ you
would still have enough time to withdraw or make an attempt to get
offside. It's not like leaving the ball.Probably there are times when
a distraction occur too late for any action by the batsman, but this
isn't one of them.

>
>> Smith didn't look in the least distracted either when he got out, or
>> cracked those fours.
>> It's a non issue.
>
>Do you think those 4s should have been called dead?

NO

>
>> Also if a batsman withdraws from a delivery, and then decides to hit
>> the ball and that ball is caught - the batsman will be out caught.
>
>> What's the problem? Davis screwed up, painted himself into a dead ball
>> corner.When SA suggested Finn's action was distracting them, Davis
>> should have informed them that they don't have to play at the ball if
>> they have been distracted. He removed the chance of a wicket from a
>> fair delivery, disallowed runs from a fair delivery. Just because a
>> batsman says that something is distracting doesn't mean he has been
>> distracted by it.
>
>Ah. That answers it. You think Davis made mistakes in calling them dead-ball.
>I still don't think this ruling should absolutely require the batsman to make it clear he was distracted by pulling out of the shot.

If it isn't clear that the batsman has been distracted then there can
be no reason for the dead ball call.

>
>What about a spin bowler falling over? Should that be considered a distraction? That would give the batsman even less time to pull out.

Less time? Bullshite.
Did this spin bowler fall over on purpose? Did he roll onto the
protected area?
What about Darren Gough bowling and pulling faces at the batsman
during his run up?

max.it

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 10:04:28 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> >What about a spin bowler falling over? Should that be considered a distraction? That would give the batsman even less time to pull out.
> Less time? Bullshite.
> Did this spin bowler fall over on purpose?

Let's say no. Pure accident.

And come on, if an event happens AFTER the non-striker's stumps, then surely there is LESS time for the batsman.

> What about Darren Gough bowling and pulling faces at the batsman
> during his run up?

It would seem to me this is a childish attempt to distract the batsman. I'm probably rule that it was a crap attempt, though, and therefore NOT a distraction.

But I thought we all agreed that knocking the stumps mid-delivery can be distracting, no?

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:73ca4da6-9fb4-428d...@googlegroups.com...

no, as Swann showed

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8db5d16b-5308-43c9...@googlegroups.com...

Sorry, I'd hate for you to have to hand it over after all these years

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 11:36:25 AM UTC+10, dechucka wrote:
> > But I thought we all agreed that knocking the stumps mid-delivery can be
> > distracting, no?
> no, as Swann showed

You do understand the difference between 'can be' and 'is', right?

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ec9dace5-a917-453d...@googlegroups.com...

of course and imho I don't want things changed on the possibility of "can"

[Gilly's Danda]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:02:04 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:

<snips>

> If a bowler WANTS to bump the stumps, should he be allowed to do so?

> The answer is no. Some batsman DO find it distracting, and I think unfairly
> so. If you agree that some find it distracting, then the Laws should be framed
> assuming ALL batsman find it distracting.

One could just as easily argue that some bowlers nick the stumps when bowling by accident, and therefore that the Laws should be framed on the assumption that all bowlers do so by accident, and hence no penalties should obtain.

> I hate what I call "intent based Laws", ie ones where we expect the umpire to read a player's mind. This is similar, as we're expecting the ump to decide if the event was distracting.

Why do you hate them?

You do drive at an interesting point in all law-making and judicial functions (albeit one of which you seem utterly ignorant), namely whether there should be one standard in all cases or whether there is a need for discretion in certain cases. There's an interesting (to me, at least) discussion between Justices Scalia and Breyer of the US Supreme Court on YouTube. They're about as far apart on the legal spectrum as you might find, but they both agree that at their level, they're setting precdents that are going to be followed by 300 million people. Both also acknowledge, however, that were they trial judges (in effect, umpires) they might do things quite differently. You'd expect Scalia to take a different view on this, given his general jurisprudence, but he says that there are a number of ways that trial judges can do things that are sui generis and non-reviewable by superior courts.

As a general principle, it seems fair to most people that the bowler shouldn't knock the bails when bowling, for a number of reasons - the inability to bring about a run-out afterwards seems most persuasive to me; if a good batsman isn't distracted by calls about biscuits when facing Shane Warne at the SCG or a crowed of 90,000 at Eden Gardens, the sound of the bails being clipped shouldn't do much either. Whether a bowler does so as a one-off or habitually seems to be a fair factor to take into account. Otherwise, why have umpires at all? The idea of having someone there at the coal-face seems to me to suggest that the guardians of the laws think some form of discretion is both useful and helpful to the conduct of the game

> It might seem ok to take the stance of "if a wicket falls, call it dead ball,
> and if a boundary is hit, call that dead too", but what about a dot ball?
> Should that be called dead and rebowled? What about a dot ball off the final
> delivery in an ODO where 1 run was needed to tie the game? Rebowl that?
>
> Either call ALL bumps a dead ball (ie regardless of outcome) or make it
> illegal and call them no-balls.
>
> The problem with the former is it can turn a match winning situation (a 6 hit
> to win) into a losing situation (a wicket on the re-bowl).

The mere choice of words you use ("match winning" for hitting a 6; "losing" for a wicket, when even the most puerile Cricket-supporter knows that a wicket can mean a win and a 6 can mean a loss if Miandad is the batsman and you're India) betray pretty profound, pro-batsmen, biases.

In general, laws and lawmakers strive at attaining a balance of interests in the bigger scheme of things. In order to do justice in specific situations, the use of a judge with powers of discretion is a well-hewn path in the common law.

Cricket comes from similar traditions to the common law, and is played by people who are drawn to its traditions of fair play and justice in a way that autocrats in command structures are not. I, for one, laud the traditions of the game and of justice. The courts of equity across the common law world are among the common law's finest creations, I think. The idea of an umpire with discretion in particular cases is one of the game's.

A

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 1:25:51 PM UTC+10, Gilly's Danda wrote:
> > I hate what I call "intent based Laws", ie ones where we expect the umpire to read a player's mind. This is similar, as we're expecting the ump to decide if the event was distracting.
> Why do you hate them?

Because humans can't read minds, and therefore mistakes ARE made.
How many? No idea.. we can't read minds.

> As a general principle, it seems fair to most people that the bowler shouldn't knock the bails when bowling, for a number of reasons - the inability to bring about a run-out afterwards seems most persuasive to me;

This particular dead-ball Laws is there for one reason - to protect the batsman.

>if a good batsman isn't distracted by calls about biscuits when facing Shane Warne at the SCG or a crowed of 90,000 at Eden Gardens, the sound of the bails being clipped shouldn't do much either.

You say shouldn't, as if there's one acceptable standard for all players.
Whilst I personally believe the main reason Smith and Co complained was simply to get under Finn's skin, there's a good chance the complaint was genuine.
And if THIS complaint wasn't, surely we can agree that at other times it will be.
Davis obviously agrees on this.

>Whether a bowler does so as a one-off or habitually seems to be a fair factor to take into account.

Why? It seems entirely unfair to me.

>Otherwise, why have umpires at all? The idea of having someone there at the coal-face seems to me to suggest that the guardians of the laws think some form of discretion is both useful and helpful to the conduct of the game

To rule on black and white issues. Did it pitch in line etc. Not to read someone's mind and decide if he (or, worse, "A Standard Batsman") was distracted enough by "This Event" to call a dead-ball.

We have Max saying they shouldn't have been dead-ball, and Davis calling them dead-ball. 2 umpires I respect. Who is right?

If we agree it's a distraction, then add a punishment to stop recidivism.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 5, 10:39 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:54:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:

> > Why don't you carry on and say it should be a no-ball if the bowler
> > falls over after delivering, as Finn used to do? I'm sure that got a
> > bit distracting as well.
>
> I'd be happy if this was also called no-ball.

Why? There's no stipulation that once a bowler has delivered the ball
he must remain on his feet. He may not run onto certain areas of the
pitch, and he may not obstruct a batsman trying to make his ground.
Who cares if he's prone or upright? Why should it matter? If he falls
onto the protected area then there's a law that deals with that. If he
falls over into a position in which he is in the batsman's way and
just lays there then there's a law for that too.

These are unlikely cases, but they are provided for. Other than that
the bowler is not unfairly disadvantaging anybody and the only risks
are to his own health and dignity. What's the problem?

>
> If the bowler does something that is considered a distraction, then yes, call it a no-ball. Doing so punishes the person causing the distraction. Under the current Laws, the person who is being distracted might be "punished". For example Smith's 4s on Day 1.
>

> > Then we'll have no-balling bowlers because their handkerchief falls
> > out of their back pocket.
>
> Good. Now you're starting to understand.
>
> > It's a game. Played by human beings. They make the odd mistake. Rules
> > of games tend to assume that people want to play the game properly and
> > don't start being ridiculous if they are less than perfect.
>
> Even by your standards, a crap argument.
> Cricket is full of Laws that don't allow for "the odd mistake". Opps, sorry, my front foot just went over slightly. Opps, sorry, my back foot touched the edge of the pitch. Why would it be such a perversion of justice to add "oops, sorry, knocked the bails off whilst bowling" to that list of mistakes?
>
> The problem with the current Laws is it relies on the Umpire to properly judge if the batsman was distracted by the bowler's action. If I crack it for 6, how can defend me (as a batsman) by calling it a dead ball?

Well look at what just happened.

1) Smith complained to the umpires to say that he and Petersen were
distracted.
2) Even in cases where Smith's distraction was to the extent that he
could cut the ball for 4 the umpires still called dead ball.

Which is fine. How did the umpires know that the Finn's kneeing of the
stumps was distracting? The batsmen told him. Once they told him he
gave Finn a warning and when Finn persisted in his method dead balls
were called. In one case England didn't get a wicket, in at least two
more SA didn't get a boundary. All well and good... the batsmen said
"this is distracting us" and so the umpires started dead-balling
whenever the distraction occurred - and it occurred before the batsmen
played their shots.

If Smith had complained on a technicality just to niggle England a
little, then he paid a price for that too. Which is all well and good
- why should the batsmen, in a case like this, have their bread
buttered on both sides?

[Bob Martin]

in 1104974 20120805 140201 Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>If you don't like intent-based laws, don't watch cricket and don't
>take part in real life (in which you may have noticed that where
>achieving a conviction in just about every crime which attracts a
>custodial sentence requires the prosecution to prove malice as well as
>the fact that the accused did it). Follow something where "I didn't
>mean it" never comes into it, like chess or sudoku.

Unless you fall asleep, leave the road and derail a train ...

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:10:58 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:39 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:54:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > Why don't you carry on and say it should be a no-ball if the bowler
> > > falls over after delivering, as Finn used to do? I'm sure that got a
> > > bit distracting as well.
> > I'd be happy if this was also called no-ball.
>
> Why? There's no stipulation that once a bowler has delivered the ball
> he must remain on his feet. He may not run onto certain areas of the
> pitch, and he may not obstruct a batsman trying to make his ground.
> Who cares if he's prone or upright? Why should it matter? If he falls
> onto the protected area then there's a law that deals with that. If he
> falls over into a position in which he is in the batsman's way and
> just lays there then there's a law for that too.

An umpire *might* decide that the falling down is a distraction.
End of story.

> These are unlikely cases, but they are provided for. Other than that
> the bowler is not unfairly disadvantaging anybody and the only risks
> are to his own health and dignity. What's the problem?

An umpire *might* decide that the falling down is a distraction.

> Well look at what just happened.
> 1) Smith complained to the umpires to say that he and Petersen were
> distracted.
> 2) Even in cases where Smith's distraction was to the extent that he
> could cut the ball for 4 the umpires still called dead ball.
> Which is fine. How did the umpires know that the Finn's kneeing of the
> stumps was distracting? The batsmen told him.

So now we've got the situation where, essentially, a player decides what is distracting.
Now all a batsman has to do is say, at the start of the game "Sir, I find it a distraction if the bails are knocked off" and the ump should automatically dead-ball all instances.
I'm of course being sarcastic. In reality, without a Law change, umpires will most probably revert to calling dead-ball on the outcome of the delivery; wickets, boundaries and batsman pulling away will be called dead, and dots won't be.

[dechucka]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a185d2be-df15-4b74...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:10:58 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:39 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:54:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > Why don't you carry on and say it should be a no-ball if the bowler
> > > falls over after delivering, as Finn used to do? I'm sure that got a
> > > bit distracting as well.
> > I'd be happy if this was also called no-ball.
>
> Why? There's no stipulation that once a bowler has delivered the ball
> he must remain on his feet. He may not run onto certain areas of the
> pitch, and he may not obstruct a batsman trying to make his ground.
> Who cares if he's prone or upright? Why should it matter? If he falls
> onto the protected area then there's a law that deals with that. If he
> falls over into a position in which he is in the batsman's way and
> just lays there then there's a law for that too.

An umpire *might* decide that the falling down is a distraction.
End of story.

==========================================
not prescriptive enough for your pov

> These are unlikely cases, but they are provided for. Other than that
> the bowler is not unfairly disadvantaging anybody and the only risks
> are to his own health and dignity. What's the problem?

An umpire *might* decide that the falling down is a distraction.

===========================================================

not prescriptive enough for your pov

> Well look at what just happened.
> 1) Smith complained to the umpires to say that he and Petersen were
> distracted.
> 2) Even in cases where Smith's distraction was to the extent that he
> could cut the ball for 4 the umpires still called dead ball.
> Which is fine. How did the umpires know that the Finn's kneeing of the
> stumps was distracting? The batsmen told him.

So now we've got the situation where, essentially, a player decides what is
distracting.
Now all a batsman has to do is say, at the start of the game "Sir, I find it
a distraction if the bails are knocked off" and the ump should automatically
dead-ball all instances.

=========================================================================

fair enough

I'm of course being sarcastic. In reality, without a Law change, umpires
will most probably revert to calling dead-ball on the outcome of the
delivery; wickets, boundaries and batsman pulling away will be called dead,
and dots won't be.

===========================================================================
no they won't

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:25:51 -0700 (PDT), "Gilly's Danda"
<finally...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:02:04 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:

>> I hate what I call "intent based Laws", ie ones where we expect the umpire to read a player's mind. This is similar, as we're expecting the ump to decide if the event was distracting.
>
>Why do you hate them?

They require the umpires to exercise their common sense. Having none
of his own, jzf finds it difficult to comprehend that anyone else
could have any.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Andrew Dunford]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8db5d16b-5308-43c9...@googlegroups.com...

Well, it's early in the month but this will be difficult to top.

Andrew

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 6, 8:50 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:10:58 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:

<snip>

> > These are unlikely cases, but they are provided for. Other than that
> > the bowler is not unfairly disadvantaging anybody and the only risks
> > are to his own health and dignity. What's the problem?
>
> An umpire *might* decide that the falling down is a distraction.

Might he? It seems to me that the laws require the batsmen to tell the
umpire something is distracting them whilst they are receiving or
preparing to receive a delivery.

Which is what happened at Headingley. Neither umpire made a decision
that Finn's collisions with the stumps were a distraction, one of the
pair at bat told them - as has already been explained to you.

>
> > Well look at what just happened.
> > 1) Smith complained to the umpires to say that he and Petersen were
> > distracted.
> > 2) Even in cases where Smith's distraction was to the extent that he
> > could cut the ball for 4 the umpires still called dead ball.
> > Which is fine. How did the umpires know that the Finn's kneeing of the
> > stumps was distracting? The batsmen told him.
>
> So now we've got the situation where, essentially, a player decides what is distracting.
> Now all a batsman has to do is say, at the start of the game "Sir, I find it a distraction if the bails are knocked off" and the ump should automatically dead-ball all instances.

No. The law in question allows for dead balling if the batsman is
distracted when he's receiving or preparing to receive a ball - not at
any time. Now if you've actually read the laws you'd like to see
changed then you'd know that.

> I'm of course being sarcastic. In reality, without a Law change, umpires will most probably revert to calling dead-ball on the outcome of the delivery; wickets, boundaries and batsman pulling away will be called dead, and dots won't be.

If they call dead ball as the knee hits the stumps then anything that
happens between that call and the ball becoming live again is of no
consequence. Dots and fours will be similarly disregarded.

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 10:59:01 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:50 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:10:58 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> <snip>
> > > These are unlikely cases, but they are provided for. Other than that
> > > the bowler is not unfairly disadvantaging anybody and the only risks
> > > are to his own health and dignity. What's the problem?
> > An umpire *might* decide that the falling down is a distraction.
>
> Might he? It seems to me that the laws require the batsmen to tell the
> umpire something is distracting them whilst they are receiving or
> preparing to receive a delivery.
>
> Which is what happened at Headingley. Neither umpire made a decision
> that Finn's collisions with the stumps were a distraction, one of the
> pair at bat told them - as has already been explained to you.

And as I explained to you, this means a single conversation at the start of the match, or after the first instance of this, means the umpire MUST call every instance of this a dead-ball. That is what you're saying. Otherwise, that initial conversation is irrelevant and the umpire must decide on the merits of each instance.
And I can't work out a fair way to decide on the merits of each instance. Max says the batsman MUST pull out. I can foresee instances when the batsman is distracted but doesn't have time to pull out.

> > Now all a batsman has to do is say, at the start of the game "Sir, I find it a distraction if the bails are knocked off" and the ump should automatically dead-ball all instances.
>
> No. The law in question allows for dead balling if the batsman is
> distracted when he's receiving or preparing to receive a ball - not at
> any time. Now if you've actually read the laws you'd like to see
> changed then you'd know that.

I would hope that "any time this, being the bowler knocking the bails off mid-delivery, happens" was implied. That's what we're talking about, after all.

> > I'm of course being sarcastic. In reality, without a Law change, umpires will most probably revert to calling dead-ball on the outcome of the delivery; wickets, boundaries and batsman pulling away will be called dead, and dots won't be.
>
> If they call dead ball as the knee hits the stumps then anything that
> happens between that call and the ball becoming live again is of no
> consequence. Dots and fours will be similarly disregarded.

I didn't see it, but I thought Davis called dead-ball after the completion of the catch. That's how I read it.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 6, 3:37 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 10:59:01 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 8:50 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:10:58 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > These are unlikely cases, but they are provided for. Other than that
> > > > the bowler is not unfairly disadvantaging anybody and the only risks
> > > > are to his own health and dignity. What's the problem?
> > > An umpire *might* decide that the falling down is a distraction.
>
> > Might he? It seems to me that the laws require the batsmen to tell the
> > umpire something is distracting them whilst they are receiving or
> > preparing to receive a delivery.
>
> > Which is what happened at Headingley. Neither umpire made a decision
> > that Finn's collisions with the stumps were a distraction, one of the
> > pair at bat told them - as has already been explained to you.
>
> And as I explained to you, this means a single conversation at the start of the match, or after the first instance of this, means the umpire MUST call every instance of this a dead-ball. That is what you're saying. Otherwise, that initial conversation is irrelevant and the umpire must decide on the merits of each instance.

Well, there's a grey area there. Smith and Petersen were batting.
Smith complained. What should the ump do when Amla and Kallis are
batting? (real question - I don't know and I don't have a Tom Smith)

> And I can't work out a fair way to decide on the merits of each instance. Max says the batsman MUST pull out. I can foresee instances when the batsman is distracted but doesn't have time to pull out.

Sure. But that means we start no-balling?

>
> > > Now all a batsman has to do is say, at the start of the game "Sir, I find it a distraction if the bails are knocked off" and the ump should automatically dead-ball all instances.
>
> > No. The law in question allows for dead balling if the batsman is
> > distracted when he's receiving or preparing to receive a ball - not at
> > any time. Now if you've actually read the laws you'd like to see
> > changed then you'd know that.
>
> I would hope that "any time this, being the bowler knocking the bails off mid-delivery, happens" was implied. That's what we're talking about, after all.

Well, if I understand your previous posts correctly you wanted noballs
for any kind of distraction, including the bowler falling. So there's
some distance between us.

>
> > > I'm of course being sarcastic. In reality, without a Law change, umpires will most probably revert to calling dead-ball on the outcome of the delivery; wickets, boundaries and batsman pulling away will be called dead, and dots won't be.
>
> > If they call dead ball as the knee hits the stumps then anything that
> > happens between that call and the ball becoming live again is of no
> > consequence. Dots and fours will be similarly disregarded.
>
> I didn't see it, but I thought Davis called dead-ball after the completion of the catch. That's how I read it.

No. He was still waving his arms, but he called "dead ball" as Finn
hit the stumps - which would not have been very long before the catch.
And there had been some kind of prior warning. Accounts vary. SA
insist that Finn and Strauss were both warned that dead balls were
coming, England are saying that Finn was told only that the batsmen
were distracted. Whatever, it had been noted and Finn knew that it was
an issue.

[Mike Holmans]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:38:31 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>Well, there's a grey area there. Smith and Petersen were batting.
>Smith complained. What should the ump do when Amla and Kallis are
>batting? (real question - I don't know and I don't have a Tom Smith)

I can see how Smith in his position as captain could arguably make a
statement on behalf of his entire batting order, but I'd have my
doubts: I'm not sure that I entirely see why that would be
qualitatively different from saying that they all found a particular
bowler's ponytail hairdo annoying - and that is little short of
outright gamesmanship.

If it were Petersen who had done the complaining, I really don't see
how an umpire could carry Petersen's discomfiture forward and apply it
to Amla.

But that's all a bit airy-fairy and theoretical. In the real world, I
think it would depend very much on exactly what the sequence of events
was, had been, or looked likely to be, and that it would be up to the
umpire to make a common-sense judgment as to the best way to proceed.
Which won't please those who think that umpires are a revoltingly
human species and would prefer to have speak-your-weight machines
which spit out decisions which are predetermined.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[PlaySafe]

If England had got wicket the first time, could smith go and tell the umpire to dead ball it bcz he was distracted. And umpire would say I am going to warn him now, better luck next time for you.

If there was no wicket on those balls and only 4s got reversed, I believe England would be more happy with current penalty, but SA getting their run cut short.

[PlaySafe]

On Monday, 6 August 2012 09:34:53 UTC+5, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 1:25:51 PM UTC+10, Gilly's Danda wrote:
>
> > > I hate what I call "intent based Laws", ie ones where we expect the umpire to read a player's mind. This is similar, as we're expecting the ump to decide if the event was distracting.
>
> > Why do you hate them?
>

As smith talked to umpire for distraction law regarding Finn, I believe smith on-purpose tried to get under Finn's skin as discussed by many. But the umpire thought opposite that Finn is actually distracting batsman. So was the umpire able to read smith's intent? everyone has his own parameters for such things.

So a uniform application of No-Ball or Dead ball should be good.

also If an umpire cant see bowler dislaunching bail after being hit for 6 or bail dropped due to wind, you are expecting him to read intent of bowler.

>
> Because humans can't read minds, and therefore mistakes ARE made.
>
> How many? No idea.. we can't read minds.
>

snip

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 1:38:31 AM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > And I can't work out a fair way to decide on the merits of each instance. Max says the batsman MUST pull out. I can foresee instances when the batsman is distracted but doesn't have time to pull out.
>
> Sure. But that means we start no-balling?

I proposed both auto-dead ball and auto-noball, with the later my preferred. The batsman is 100% innocent here. It is the bowler who either accidentally or deliberately is causing a distraction. I don't think it's fair to call dead-ball after a batsman has hit a match winning 6.
Auto-noball seems the most just solution. Punish the bowler for his actions.

> > I would hope that "any time this, being the bowler knocking the bails off mid-delivery, happens" was implied. That's what we're talking about, after all.
>
> Well, if I understand your previous posts correctly you wanted noballs
> for any kind of distraction, including the bowler falling. So there's
> some distance between us.

For any kind of distraction caused by the bowler's actions, yes.

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 5:05:44 AM UTC+10, PlaySafe wrote:

> If England had got wicket the first time, could smith go and tell the umpire to dead ball it bcz he was distracted. And umpire would say I am going to warn him now, better luck next time for you.

Some of us are saying that the batsman MUST pull out for it to be considered a distraction.

So yeah, if you get out the first time this happens, and you played at it, too bad. Have your captain tell the umps at the toss, however, that your entire team find it distracting and you're "protected" for the entire match.
Make perfect sense to me!

[Unknown]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:20:56 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 5:05:44 AM UTC+10, PlaySafe wrote:
>
>> If England had got wicket the first time, could smith go and tell the umpire to dead ball it bcz he was distracted.
>And umpire would say I am going to warn him now, better luck next time for you.
>
>Some of us are saying that the batsman MUST pull out for it to be considered a distraction.

Or drop his hands or appear to have been distracted would really sound
better. If the batsman is distracted it has to be clear to the umpire
that the batsman actually has been distracted.

>
>So yeah, if you get out the first time this happens, and you played at it, too bad.
>Have your captain tell the umps at the toss, however, that your entire team find it distracting and you're "protected" for the entire match.
>Make perfect sense to me!

Cricket captains can't see into the future, how can they tell if a
player has been distracted before the distraction occurs??

max.it

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 9:03:33 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> >Some of us are saying that the batsman MUST pull out for it to be considered a distraction.
>
> Or drop his hands or appear to have been distracted would really sound
> better. If the batsman is distracted it has to be clear to the umpire
> that the batsman actually has been distracted.

Yeah, of course. I'd consider that "pulling out".
Sounds sexy, doesn't it? :)

> >So yeah, if you get out the first time this happens, and you played at it, too bad.
> >Have your captain tell the umps at the toss, however, that your entire team find it distracting and you're "protected" for the entire match.
> >Make perfect sense to me!
>
> Cricket captains can't see into the future, how can they tell if a
> player has been distracted before the distraction occurs??

Heck yeah, I agree. It's seems absurd to me that a conversation between batsman and umpire on day 1 might affect an umpire's ruling later in the game (perhaps even as late as day 5).

Based on the current Laws it seems to me Davis did as Mike suggested, "made a common-sense judgment as to the best way to proceed", and stuffed up.

I doubt that mistake had much influence on the game, but one day it might. The no-ball solution is an elegant one with very little cost.

[Mike Holmans]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:03:33 GMT, (max.it) tapped the keyboard and
brought forth:

That's as may be, but you have to remember that umpires are extremely
stupid on planet jzf. They are incapable of making sensible decisions
on their own and have to have everything laid down in exact terms so
that there is no possibility that they should use any discretion at
all in case jzf doesn't like the result.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Unknown]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:54:40 -0700 (PDT), PlaySafe
<plays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 6 August 2012 09:34:53 UTC+5, jzfredricks wrote:
>> On Monday, August 6, 2012 1:25:51 PM UTC+10, Gilly's Danda wrote:

>>=20
>> > > I hate what I call "intent based Laws", ie ones where we expect the u=
>mpire to read a player's mind. This is similar, as we're expecting the ump =

>to decide if the event was distracting.

>>=20

>> > Why do you hate them?

>>=20
>
>As smith talked to umpire for distraction law regarding Finn, I believe smi=
>th on-purpose tried to get under Finn's skin as discussed by many. But the =
>umpire thought opposite that Finn is actually distracting batsman. So was t=
>he umpire able to read smith's intent? everyone has his own parameters for =
>such things.=20

>
>So a uniform application of No-Ball or Dead ball should be good.
>

>also If an umpire cant see bowler dislaunching bail after being hit for 6 o=

>r bail dropped due to wind, you are expecting him to read intent of bowler.
>

>>=20

>> Because humans can't read minds, and therefore mistakes ARE made.

>>=20

>> How many? No idea.. we can't read minds.

>>=20
>
>snip

Umpires act as a team, it's littered through the laws and the guides
to the laws. Both umpires, umpires together, the umpires.
If Smith had mentioned anything to Davis, that information would have
been shared with Tucker (was it Tucker)? There certainly wouldn't,
couldn't, shouldn't have been a Smith/Davis T�te � T�te.

Of course Davis could be the one who was distracted.
In any case and just for the record. The only legal way that Davis
could call dead ball in respect of the series of incidents that
occured, was under laws 42.2. and 42.18. Umpires report will reveal
all. If the incident was reported as it should be, then it will appear
on the icc website (tiny link bottom of the page).
Worth keeping an eye out for that

max.it

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 9:51:00 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> Umpires act as a team, it's littered through the laws and the guides
> to the laws. Both umpires, umpires together, the umpires.
> If Smith had mentioned anything to Davis, that information would have
> been shared with Tucker (was it Tucker)? There certainly wouldn't,
> couldn't, shouldn't have been a Smith/Davis T�te � T�te.

Sure. But it's clear to me that you and Davis are applying the Laws differently.

> Of course Davis could be the one who was distracted.
> In any case and just for the record. The only legal way that Davis
> could call dead ball in respect of the series of incidents that
> occured, was under laws 42.2. and 42.18. Umpires report will reveal
> all. If the incident was reported as it should be, then it will appear
> on the icc website (tiny link bottom of the page).
> Worth keeping an eye out for that

Yeah, it should be interesting. I imagine they come out pretty quickly too.

[Unknown]

Discretion is widely available in law 42, but the reports and comms
and rumors and usenet postings, debate law 23, while totally missing
23.4 (b) (i), which in turn leads to law 42.2 and on to law 42.18.

I know why Davis called dead ball, the sequence of events is clear,
but it couldn't have been under law 23 the way it has been reported.

The decision by Davis must simply have been 'this is unfair'. So it's
probably safe to assume that the distraction of the batsman
conversation with Smith didn't happen. Davis would have to inform the
batsmen and the fielding captain of his decision (as a report for
unfair play would have to be made)

max.it

[Unknown]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:06:22 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 9:51:00 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
>> Umpires act as a team, it's littered through the laws and the guides
>> to the laws. Both umpires, umpires together, the umpires.
>> If Smith had mentioned anything to Davis, that information would have
>> been shared with Tucker (was it Tucker)? There certainly wouldn't,

>> couldn't, shouldn't have been a Smith/Davis T=EF=BF=BDte =EF=BF=BD T=EF=
>=BF=BDte.
>
>Sure. But it's clear to me that you and Davis are applying the Laws differe=
>ntly.=20

>
>> Of course Davis could be the one who was distracted.
>> In any case and just for the record. The only legal way that Davis
>> could call dead ball in respect of the series of incidents that
>> occured, was under laws 42.2. and 42.18. Umpires report will reveal
>> all. If the incident was reported as it should be, then it will appear
>> on the icc website (tiny link bottom of the page).
>> Worth keeping an eye out for that
>
>Yeah, it should be interesting. I imagine they come out pretty quickly too.

Sometimes they don't describe the transgressions very well. I haven't
heard why Davis called dead ball, but I'm pretty sure (now) it wasn't
under Law 23. It can't be under Law 23.

max.it

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 10:09:12 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> I know why Davis called dead ball, the sequence of events is clear,
> but it couldn't have been under law 23 the way it has been reported.
>
> The decision by Davis must simply have been 'this is unfair'. So it's
> probably safe to assume that the distraction of the batsman
> conversation with Smith didn't happen. Davis would have to inform the
> batsmen and the fielding captain of his decision (as a report for
> unfair play would have to be made)

Interesting indeed.
42.2 and 42.18 are pretty serious breaches.
If Davis has ruled this way he might have opened a can of worms.

I couldn't find anything on the ICC website. Keep trying.

[Unknown]

I wouldn't say serious nothing appears intentional, no penalty is
awarded, but it is deemed by the umpires to be unfair if it happens.
Unfair is not an accusation, simply it is something outside of the
normal state of each event (delivery) that does not always happen or
is not expected to happen. When the umpires decide that there is
intent involved, it becomes serious.

max.it

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 6, 9:05 pm, PlaySafe <playsaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If England had got wicket the first time, could smith go and tell the umpire to dead ball it bcz he was distracted. And umpire would say I am going to warn him now, better luck next time for you.

Which is why Smith complained the very first time it happened. If he'd
waited for the out and THEN said he was distracted, he would have
created more problems for the umpires, he would have allowed a
precedent, and he would look like he was making any excuse possible
after the event. Better by far to complain as early as possible before
any significant event had occurred off of such a delivery.

[Bob Dubery]

On 7 Aug, 01:03, (max.it) wrote:

> Cricket captains can't see into the future, how can they tell if a
> player has been distracted before the distraction occurs??

Finn has history. That's the thing. It was entirely foreseeable that
he'd start knocking stumps over at some point, so the team could have
a chat about that and decide how to handle it.

[jzfredricks]

Irrelevant. Each ball should be judged on its own merit. What the bowler did 12 matches ago has no bearing.

[Bob Dubery]

My point was that it was entirely likely that Finn was going to knock
stumps over. So the opposition can anticipate that, talk about that
and decide how they feel about it and what they're going to do about
it.

Before SA's first match in the '92 World Cup Wessels, captain at the
time, told the team that the Australians were going to swear at them,
insult them and generally try to get up their noses and unsettle them
by those means. Same principle - it's foreseeable so you talk about
it.

I'd be that SA also had a talk about Trott's in-between-ball rituals
and if and how they were going to respond to that.

This is the PLAYERS talking. Not the umps. I see no problem with teams
having these sort of pre-emptive pre-match or pre-series chats.

[PlaySafe]

This is what I am saying, if bowler dislaunch a bail in a match first time and batsman gets out, we would say he was just unlucky.

also i was wondering if a warning given to one bowler for distraction allows umpire to call dead ball if other bowler from same team does it. Or each bowler will have its own warning followed by calling dead ball.

[Mike Holmans]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 06:20:51 -0700 (PDT), PlaySafe
<plays...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

You're in danger of missing the point here. Whether it is distracting
for the batsman is the *batsman's* decision, not the umpire's. The
umpire does not spend his time watching for what might distract a
batsman and making rulings - the batsman has to say that something
needs to be done in each case. For a batsman to say that one bowler is
persistently distracting is probably sufficient for that batsman and
that bowler, but it could not possibly carry over to another bowler
without a further action from a batsman.

Cheers,

Mike

--

[Vijay Sharma]

RSC at its very best!

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 9:55:37 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> This is the PLAYERS talking. Not the umps. I see no problem with teams
> having these sort of pre-emptive pre-match or pre-series chats.

Well, obviously.
I missed the part where we went from "how umps should rule on this" to "players chatting about it with each other in private".

[jzfredricks]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 12:10:14 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> You're in danger of missing the point here. Whether it is distracting
> for the batsman is the *batsman's* decision, not the umpire's.

And you're in danger of being more than half right.

It's the batsman's job to decide;
a) if the event is a distraction (probably more of a reaction than a decision)
b) how to notify the ump that it is a distraction (ie pull out with body, raise bat, raise hand, say something etc)

The decision as to whether it's a dead ball is 100% the umpire's to make, based on the evidence before him.

I've seen it myself - heated game with lots of sledging, batsman pulls out late in the delivery and "gets up" the 1st slip for sledging. He was bowled, however, and was given out. He then complained to the ump about 1st slip, and the ump said he heard nothing. Ump refused to call dead ball.
I think the ump was wrong, mind you.

[Unknown]

Your right, what will we do if, is an important part of team chat.
Can't imagine Finn's action being a real hot topic though.
To be fair and with no offence intended at all, the big question was
probably from both sides something more like. what do we do if a big
South African kicks off with the bat - ;)

max.it

[Bob Dubery]

OK... so if we're not talking about about umps then why is it

"Irrelevant. Each ball should be judged on its own merit. What the

bowler did 12 matches ago has no bearing."?

[jzfredricks]

Um... I said I *missed* the part where the convo change.
*I* was talking about umpires.