RE:bowlers suffer
by Alexander Lawrance on Jun 30, 2007 09:50 AM
sms 'taj to 4567' This message is irrelavant to the actual discussion, but please understand our taj mahal needs 30 crore more votes to become one of the sevenwonders. This election is happening after 2200 years. Lets join our hands together as Indians and vote for our Taj Mahal. sms 'taj to 4567' or log on to www.new7wonders.com
What will be the status if a batsman gets out off the no-ball itself?
and
Will the bowler ball 6 balls with just a free hit counting it as a ball, or 7 balls by not counting the no ball or 8 balls by not counting no balls as well as the free hit ball.
RE:Plz clarify
by ARNAB SARKAR on Jun 30, 2007 12:33 AM
batsman is NOTOUT anyway if he gets out off the noball. if he is run out then the next new man gets the free hit ball. bowler will bowl 6 2 = 8 balls in that over at minimum.
RE:Plz clarify
by junaid ahmad on Jun 30, 2007 09:08 AM
this is a genuine answerv yo u have putforth, i woukld like to add to ur opinion thar rally bowleres be the sufferes in this rule, i t is my request to icc dont make any changes let it be as it is , i dont feel like there must be changes, i think icc should hunt for young tallent for this respectable game instead of doing this rubbish rules, at the last alll the captains should be allowed to participate while making this kind of deccission, with out there consent it cant be implemented. by iftikhar tayubi Vellore
RE:Plz clarify
by Alexander Lawrance on Jun 30, 2007 09:53 AM
sms 'taj to 4567' This message is irrelavant to the actual discussion, but please understand our taj mahal needs 30 crore more votes to become one of the sevenwonders. This election is happening after 2200 years. Lets join our hands together as Indians and vote for our Taj Mahal. sms 'taj to 4567'
Freehit rule will cause bowlers to suffer. I think in ODI cricket nowadays only contraversial decision is LBW. I wish ICC should remove the rule of LBW and Leg byes in ODI alone to make ODI cricket more entertaining.
RE:useless rule
by Nilima Chatterji on Jun 29, 2007 11:37 PM
I agree Put 4 stumps and remove lbw in odi. so it will not be bad for bowlers too and umpires bias will not help.
RE:useless rule
by Suguna Joseph on Jun 29, 2007 11:44 PM
I am afraid, I cannot agree about LBW. If there is no LBW, the batsman would deliberately block the wicket with his body (legs) by standing in front and not batting difficult balls.
RE:useless rule
by Arun Prasad on Jun 30, 2007 12:01 AM
ultimately, runs matter. no batsman will try to cover him with out scoring run. If he does he will be droped in next game
RE:RE:useless rule
by JOHN PETER on Jun 30, 2007 01:39 PM
if the batsman block their wicket deliberately they cant score more runs subsequently team will be not able to score more runs.
I think the ICC-people r getting more nonsense day by day...
for an idea of a single stupid person(i dare say), why the bowler-community should suffer?? don't they understand how much effort a bowler has to make for every sigle delivery. moreover it will consume more time.. thus resulting in fine for the bowling team...
bowlers(playing and retired as well) why r u not protesting???
If a bowler bowls a no ball... He pays for it as additional run and additional ball....and ya batsman is always not out except run out or stump... But its very unfair if next ball is given free hit.. A bowler has every right to bowl well and take wicket in the next ball after a no ball.. why double blow to him.... ICC, pls dont get biased towards batsmen...
RE:I dont Like this
by saurabh sharma on Jun 30, 2007 01:17 AM
And imagine the case.. A bowler get batsman out .. bold... n its a no ball... next ball is free hit... And again bowler gets the batsman out... But inspite of getting him out twice, the batsman is not out.... I hate this new rule
RE:I dont Like this
by Vikram Gandhi on Jun 29, 2007 10:17 PM
Extremely sad to know that you dont like this, but I also do not like people coming up with comments just for the heck of it. A batsman is also declared NOT OUT, even though he is stumped on a NO-BALL. Its just a RUN-OUT that legitimate on a NO-BALL. Thanks ;-)
RE:I dont Like this
by saurabh sharma on Jun 29, 2007 11:20 PM
Mr. Gandhi.. Thanx for your comments.. And please check back with the ICC rule book.. Batsman is out stumped.. on a no ball... n my friend.. batman getting out...this was not the only thing which you taken as your subject.. i have said much more than that.. not good to take a narrow view that too on the issue which was not my focus..
RE:I dont Like this
by dhimant chovatia on Jun 30, 2007 10:29 AM
Hi Saurabh.
The batsman can be out in many ways even if it is a No Ball accroding to the rulebook of ICC. Though not practical there are four more ways apart from RUN OUT. They are "Handeling The Ball", "Palying the Ball Twice", "Obstructing the Field" and "Time OUT". Any mode of dismissal that gets accredited to the bowler is considered not out in case of a NO BALL, STUMPING INCLUDED.
I did not want to comment of the subject as i have a neutral view on it, but as the matter was getting into the Laws of Cricket i thought I should clear the air... No offense to anyone. Thanks
RE:I dont Like this
by SHANE on Jun 29, 2007 11:06 PM
I think freehit ball will not be additional ball but will counted for 6 balls of a over if free hit ball is valid ball (not a no-ball or wide ball)
