Cricket
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 Aug 19
12:31
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 07
Should be consistently no-balled for bowling more than two bouncers per over,but isn't. Why ?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 64
|
By:
maybe because you don't know what a bouncer is?
|
|
By:
I don't think he bowled too many in his own half. Have a look at the replays on Channel 5. Much of the damage was done with balls just short of a length, which, is the really frightening part of it!
|
|
By:
41.6 Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries
41.6.2 A bowler shall be limited to two fast short-pitched deliveries per over. 41.6.3 A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball, which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease. |
|
By:
Excellent!
Discussion ended! |
|
By:
cummins bowled about 10 short pitched deliveries in 2 overs against the england tail enders. no one was bothered then
|
|
By:
One more …..
41.6.6 In the event of a bowler bowling more than two fast short pitched deliveries in an over as defined in clause 41.6.3 above, the umpire at the bowler’s end shall call and signal No ball on each occasion. A differential signal shall be used to signify a fast short pitched delivery.The umpire shall call and signal ‘No ball’ and then tap the head with the other hand. |
|
By:
salmon spray is another one of these remoaners who is so anti British it's painful
As Mafe points out Cummins hardly bowls a ball in his half The Aussies they don't like it up em', much like the EU, the Krauts and all the other sympathisers |
|
By:
And finally .....
41.6.10 The umpires shall have full discretion as to when to apply the regulations, being permitted to take various factors in to account including the state of the series, the past disciplinary records of the players dishing out and receiving the short pitched deliveries, and any personal bias. |
|
By:
A lot of the sort of moronic,personal responses I was expecting,but if anybody is trying to tell me that Archer didn't bowl 3 head high bouncers in an over several times they need their eyes testing. If Cummings was as guilty then the same should apply to him.
But I fear Archer's greater pace,his tendency to bowl a fair proportion at the batsman means he is more likely to kill somebody. |
|
By:
if anybody is trying to tell me that Archer didn't bowl 3 head high bouncers in an over
which over for instance? |
|
By:
Gooch and Gatting batted slowly and survived the first spell of Garner and Patterson.
But Walsh and Marshall came as first and second change respectively and there was no respite for the English batsmen. This was when a ‘perfume ball’, a quick bouncer very close to batsman’s face, from Marshall hit Gatting on the nose. For a few seconds, Gatting felt like he had gone through a brick wall as the pain started to grow. To make the matter worse the ball fell on the wicket after hitting his nose and he was bowled. He was taken off the ground and given basic treatment. When the ball was returned to Marshall, he found a piece of bone stuck in the leather. For Gatting, he had to travel back to England with a broken nose and swollen face. At Heathrow airport, once he faced the journalists with black-eyes and a large piece of plasters on his nose, one confused journalist asked him, “Where exactly did he hit you?” To his credit, Gatting became fit in the next few weeks and went back to the Caribbean before the third test match. But he had to suffer from a broken thumb on the day prior to the test match. He only played the fifth test match with not much success and England went down to complete a 0-5 thumping. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
they don't make 'em like they used to
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
You don't want to be treated like a moron, don't act like a moron.
|
|
By:
You don't want to be treated like a moron, don't act like a moron.
|
|
By:
You don't want to be treated like a moron, don't act like a moron.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
I don't read this forum much but I had gathered a lot of people didn't think much of detraveller and now I see why.
I am quite old enough to remember the West Indian attack and I thought that was OTT as well. I do actually take the point that the umpires should be doing something but if Archer IS breaking the rules he is cheating imo,just like a footballer diving,knowing he is likely to get away with it. |
|
By:
Thank you for the compliment.
If you think umpiring decisions determine who cheats then surely all the England players who didn't walk when the reviews clearly showed they were out on day 4 were also cheats? Archer bowls a head high delivery and doesn't get called one for the over. So he bowls again. Until the umpire warns him, he has the right to bowl as many as he wants. if you think that's cheating then you must be surprised at why a particular trio playing the last test wasn't hanged? |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
The thread title is incorrect, Archer isn't cheating but there is some merit to the contents of your post.
If you watch Wagner bowl for NZ he consistently bowls 5-6 bouncers per over and never gets pulled up for it! Cummins peppered the tail with bouncers and again the umpires did nothing |
|
By:
I think if you are intentionally breaking the rules whether you are Archer or anybody else then you are cheating. I personally think batsmen ought to walk if they know they have touched it but that is maybe more of a grey area as batsmen can argue that they are sometimes given out when they haven't touched it.
I DO think the umpires should enforce the laws properly,and incidentally I don't think you define a bouncer by it pitching in your half of the wicket. It depends on the pace of the bowler where he needs to pitch it to expect it to get head-high. |
|
By:
You haven't given any proof that Archer was cheating.
You mention "grey areas" above. How does Archer know whether one of his bouncers went above shoulder height as it passed the batsman? Surely that's up to the umpire decide. |
|
By:
Is Archer blind then ?
|
|
By:
Archer bowled 44 overs in the match.
Give us 3 of the overs you think he was cheating in. 44 might be a lot but you must remember who he was bowling to? And with the help of cricbuzz commentary shouldn't be hard to figure out as the match is just 2 days old. Which overs were these then where he should consistently have been noballed? |
|
By:
Shouldn't 78.5 in the first innings have been called a no ball ?
78.5 Archer to Siddle, no run, bouncer, he ducks 78.3 Archer to Siddle, no run, goes under another bouncer 78.1 Archer to Siddle, no run, a short ball ball banged in at 92mph, he ducks |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Thanks Jimbo.
We don't know if these three deliveries were clearly above shoulder height(see ICC's definition of a bouncer). Assuming these were indeed above shoulder height, it comes down to umpire judging them as such. On two of these, Siddle ducked. To call it one for the over, the ump needs to be sure it was above shoulder height, which he probably wasn't. Alternatively it could be one of those things that the umpires just don't check, like the noballs. |
|
By:
Here too - 66.3 looks like it should have been no balled. So it looks like the umpires perhaps to blame for not enforcing the rule on either side.
Exactly, at best its the umpire being too lenient or just letting it go. That doesn't make Archer a cheat. |
|
By:
Salmon,
I think the title of your thread is a little offensive and has invited some ruse replies to you, which, I consider unnecessary. I would call taking sand paper on to the pitch and using it cheating, reprehensible and almost unforgiveable. IMHO Archer wasn't even close to pushing the line let alone head butting it! I am not sure I saw him bowl three over the shoulder balls in any over. If he did it still doesn't make him a cheat. It could be a mistake or miscalculation. Regardless it is only an issue if the Umpire deems it. You also fail to mention what excitement and joy it provided all of us. Is was a thing of beauty to be treasured and remembered. It will be remembered by Aussie  !What goes around comes around. I don't like cricket, I love it! |
|
By:
btw
The ball that hit Smith in the neck was not above shoulder height, he ducked into it! |
|
By:
“[But] Jofra certainly brings a different dimension and we saw he bowled quick. But also his economy was incredible. So it’s skilful bowling with fast bouncers in between.
“That’s Test cricket. That’s what we love about it. You know you’re alive when you’re facing fast bowling. It’s bloody brilliant. Justin Langer! |
|
By:
I don't enjoy the sight of some guy trying to kill the batsmen on the other side at all enjoyable. But each to their own.
|
|
By:
Sorry
* find enjoyable. |
|
By:
He isn't trying to kill him salmon!
 What do they know of cricket who cricket only know! |
|
By:
Is it fair to say salmon has never heard of Sir Brian Close....???!
|
|
By:
A prize to anyone who can tell me who the batsman was at the other end of that 45 minutes in the crucible without taking a single! ( no referring to crocinfo either this is a sporting question! ) |
|
By:
i know a lot more about cricket pre-1970 than most of you on here (nap) so of course I have heard of Brian Close and am aware he was dragged back in 1976 at the age of 45 to face the West Indian attack. I have said before that I think they were out of order as well,but of course it was the Scot,the highly unpleasant Jardine,who first really upped it a notch nearly 90 years ago.
|