I got one serious question, and one half serious question. First the serious one. I was reading a few comments back about the helmets, that they wear them for fast bowlers, but will leave them off for, i believe "spinners". My question is, can't the fast bowlers throw a spin, or vice versa? Is it even allowed? Or is it the way the bowlers train by focusing on one type of bowl? And for the less serious question, I was watching a bit of the Canada vs. Kenya match a while back, and every time they showed the stands, no one was drinking? Are you really supposed to watch the games sober? I mean it wasn't full, but there was some people there. Whats up with that? I don't think I could sit thorough a baseball game without a beer. (Just kidding... mostly.) p.s. Also what does "NR", and "NRR" mean on the score sheet?
not sure on the bowling, but i think you cna bowl any way you like. you just have to inform the umpire, i think. NRR stands for net run rate. it is confusing, but it is like goal differential. essentially it is your run rate for 50 overs subtracted by the run rate of your opponents.
It's not illegal for a bowler recognised as one type of specialist to bowl something outside of their recognised range of deliveries ... but highly impractical. The key word is "specialism". Spinners and pacers are different creatures, who have spent many years perfecting entirely different skills. To use a football analogy, asking a spinner to fast bowl is a bit like asking Gianfranco Zola to go in goal. He's neither physically suitable nor has he practiced any of the relevant skills to a high enough level. Cricket is a game of specialisms and disciplines, more so than many others.
Ask Tony Greig. He "storted" the craze at Gloucestor Park in WA in '77. Lillee took kindly to it anyway and it was interesting seeing Barry Richards with his SHOEI helmet on and his "snag and spuds" dangling while waiting for the bowler to bowl.
I did see Warnie bounce some one once out of sheer frustration- funniest thing I've seen, and the most I saw the pudgy bloke exert himself during a delivery. It came through at the frightening pace of around 110 km/h- another bit of evidence why you dont need a helmet against spinners!!
So I have been watching a bit of the WC, and I read up on the game...I have to ask, since underhand bowling is still legal (I think the new rule is both teams have to agree to allow an underhand bowler) why does no one bowl like a fastpitch softball pitcher? Eddie Feigner was clocked fastpitching a softball at 104 mph. And I know that the ball is bigger and a bit heavier than a cricket ball, but still I can imagine a bowler could get a lot of spin pitching it that way, and still throw curve balls and sliders and the other pitches you can do with a softball...plus you always bounce it off of the pitch if need be like an overhand bowler. I must be missing something.
From http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html The special agreement would in all likelihood be reserved for non-compeitive fixtures, and quite probably when a player in such a game couldn't actually bowl. I have no idea how effective as to how an underarm delivery would be, but if it was potentially as successful as you say, then no captain is going to allow their opponents to do it.
Effective? A 6 year old would clear the boundary from under-arm bowling. U have to throw it 22 yards mate. That's a lot of distance and the ball speed will be a fraction of what u usually get. All hypothetical though. Stuff like this would never be made legal.
I must confess to having no idea about who Eddie Feigner is, or what he can do, other than from the description above, so no idea with a cricket ball. If he could do anything, would be a little better than any effort I've ever seen.
(b) Underarm bowling shall not be permitted except by special agreement before the match. and we all know what the aussies did to nz all those yrs ago.
Dear Sir, Most Respectfully, I am contacting you from Bahrain (Arabian GULF); my name is Zaheer Ahmed BASHEER; last year i had ACC Umpiring Course 1st level from IRAN. In Bahrain we have too much of Cricket, i play Cricket and do Umpiring in Important Matches as well, last Weekend while i was umpiring i came across one situation which i will describe in detail and seek your advise about it, i was the main umpire, the spin bowler was kept on disturbing my view between batsman and the ball, i warned him once that - not to come infront of me, because i can not judge the wide ball and the LBW decision. Then again after 1-2 deliveries he did that again. I warned him again. Bowler finished the Over and when he came to bowl his next over i was the main Umpire again, he did the same thing and i gave Benifit of Doubt to the batsman, coz i can not Judge the ball where it pitched. Now my question is : 1.Have i Taken the Right Decision to give Benefit of Doubt to the batsman, when i cant judge the ball because of the Bowler. 2.Can Umpire Change is spot if he can't judge the wide ball? if he can, then 3.How he will judge the LBW decision? I will appreciate your helpfull reply as soon as possible Thanking you in advance Regards ZAHEER AHMED
Couple of options: 1) as you have done, advise (not really a 'warning') the bowler that he is blocking your view. The umpire does not need to move. If you cannot see the impact of ball on pad, you cannot give an LBW appeal out 2) if the bowler is treading on the 'protected area' you can give him a caution, and if he continues twice more, require his captain to remove him for the remainder of the innings - Law 42.12
I'm pretty sure they changed the rule the day after that infamous incident back in the 1980-81 season. It wasn't one of Australia's proudest moments on the sporting field, and the Kiwis still haven't got over it!
we havn't because it was unbelievely low. The chance of hit a 6 back then off the last ball. And why should we?
Why should you? Because its just one of those things that happens on a sporting field, and it happened almost 30 years ago. Imagine the uproar in NZ if Gilly had runout Vettori if he went to celebrate McMillan getting a ton, like your keeper did to Murali in the recent series against Sri Lanka. Is that any better than an underarm ball? Not really, but you wont hear Sri Lankans whinge about it for 30 years.
I'm a complete novice. Can someone explain why this was such a big deal? From my uneducated POV It's like a quarterback kneeling on the ball to run out the clock in American football.
LOL! Welcome aboard Matt. Technically it was allowed, although the argument was that it was against the spirit of the game. To try and put it in perspective, it would be like a soccer team kicking it out to allow an injured player to get treated, and the team taking the throw in doesnt give it back to them from the resulting throw in. But it was against the Kiwis- so in reality it was fine! If you want to read more- blow yourself away! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981
Matt, I would say the analogy is very similar yet, one is seen as unsporting and one is not. P.S. don't know why I never got an email saying there were any replies to my question two years ago, but anywho...after lengthy consideration, even if it were legal I don't think fastpitch softball style would be as effective as I initially thought...granted they could bounce it in which may mimic traditional bowling...just that the batting intent is too different. In case some of y'all have no clue what I was previously talking about, this is the style of underhand "bowling" I was referring to in my last post. (I have no clue how good this guy is or how fast he is pitching and bear in mind his target is different than in cricket) [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PobjIc5ljZI&feature=related"]YouTube - Fastpitch Softball Joe Hineline[/ame]
I don't have an answer, but this is the incident it stems from... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKNQ-crIr50"]YouTube - underarm bowl[/ame]
