Finn's Law: 'no-ball' To Be Called From October 2013

If a part of the bowler's body hits the stumps during his stride, what should happen?

  • No-ball

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • Dead-ball

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Dead-ball ONLY if the batsman pulls away

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Nothing -- the ball is played as normal

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
Top Contributors
troll3y

troll3y

Active Member
http://www.espncricinfo.com/mcc/content/current/story/605852.html

How do we feel about this? I gotta admit, I'm not convinced either way; it doesn't appear that all batsmen are unanimously distracted by the bowler's hand/knee hitting the stumps, but the batsman has the right of the law to pull away because of a distraction. Jonathan Agnew is convinced that the whole thing is a non-issue, and that Graeme Smith only caused the original fuss just to get inside Finn's head.

There are valid arguments on both sides. What are your thoughts?
 
I think it has to be called a no ball. First off the bowler is gaining a unfair advantage by bowling in a position he shouldn't be using. Just as you can't bowl too wide of the crease or over the step line. It can also distract the batsman and result in his dismissal. Lastly the batsman shouldn't be penalised for scoring runs off a delivery just because the bowler has made a error by making contact with the stumps.
 
Dead ball, I think.

I mean, there are a bunch of pretty minor disadvantages that come from a bowler brushing the stumps and they're not all to the batsman, e.g. the bowler is distracted by his hand brushing the stumps or the bails are dislodged, making runouts harder.

Bottom line is I don't really think that either side is benefited or harmed significantly by it. Unless it's something occurring so often that it's holding up play (and therefore needs the no-ball as a disincentive), common sense says just play the dead ball.
 
I agree with Zack, to me it should be a no ball. The advantages the bowler can get are small, but there is potential there for the batsman to be put off so for this reason a no ball should be the choice.
 
Another rule change for the sake of changing the rules. Rule doesn't need to be changed at all, let them play already!!
 
Zack said:
I think it has to be called a no ball. First off the bowler is gaining a unfair advantage by bowling in a position he shouldn't be using. Just as you can't bowl too wide of the crease or over the step line. It can also distract the batsman and result in his dismissal. Lastly the batsman shouldn't be penalised for scoring runs off a delivery just because the bowler has made a error by making contact with the stumps.
Click to expand...
Said like a true batsman, its a dead ball all day. This is almost always an accident but if you are worried about Finn then make it a two mistake warning and three time you are removed from the attack. Same as running on the pitch.
 
nairbe said:
Said like a true batsman, its a dead ball all day. This is almost always an accident but if you are worried about Finn then make it a two mistake warning and three time you are removed from the attack. Same as running on the pitch.
Click to expand...

I'm a bowler and agree with Zack...
 
futureblackcap said:
I'm a bowler and agree with Zack...
Click to expand...
I am or was also a bowler. I never knocked the bails off from memory in my delivery stride but have seen it happen. It never has any real impact other than the bowler pulling out or it makes it a dam site harder to perform a run out. This all seems to be over a bowler and his action. Funny when it was a chucking spinner we changed the rule to allow it, now we want to change the rule because of the bad habit of one player. Get over it and leave things alone.
 
nairbe said:
I am or was also a bowler. I never knocked the bails off from memory in my delivery stride but have seen it happen. It never has any real impact other than the bowler pulling out or it makes it a dam site harder to perform a run out. This all seems to be over a bowler and his action. Funny when it was a chucking spinner we changed the rule to allow it, now we want to change the rule because of the bad habit of one player. Get over it and leave things alone.
Click to expand...

I don't know which team you support but if Finn was versing your team and seven runs were scored off "dead ball"s and your team happened to lose by seven runs. That's gonna piss you off isn't it? That happened to NZ by the way...
 
futureblackcap said:
I don't know which team you support but if Finn was versing your team and seven runs were scored off "dead ball"s and your team happened to lose by seven runs. That's gonna piss you off isn't it? That happened to NZ by the way...
Click to expand...
So i refer to my earlier post. Make it like running on the pitch, he would be called once and the coach would have it fixed
 
futureblackcap said:
Fair enough, but the batting team could still lose crucial runs in those two deliveries before he's taken out of the attack.
Click to expand...

Im backing blackcap up on this one. To me there is potential for the bowler to gain through this even if its just two deliveries and for this reason it has to be a no ball so a bowler wouldnt do it.
 
Mugshot said:
Im backing blackcap up on this one. To me there is potential for the bowler to gain through this even if its just two deliveries and for this reason it has to be a no ball so a bowler wouldnt do it.
Click to expand...
OK fair enough, then the switch shot goes this really is illegal if you cannot stand as what you are, the short ball is out as it really is not in the spirit of the game, what else do we want to out law in our weakness. Bowlers have been knocking the Bailes off by accident for as long as the game has existed and now we have one serial offender we change the rules. Time to revoke the leg theory rules as this was all contrived to make it easy for the most hated Australian player in history, just happens to be the best bat ever as well but never mind.
 
nairbe said:
OK fair enough, then the switch shot goes this really is illegal if you cannot stand as what you are, the short ball is out as it really is not in the spirit of the game, what else do we want to out law in our weakness. Bowlers have been knocking the Bailes off by accident for as long as the game has existed and now we have one serial offender we change the rules. Time to revoke the leg theory rules as this was all contrived to make it easy for the most hated Australian player in history, just happens to be the best bat ever as well but never mind.
Click to expand...

Or the runs could just count and everybody wins... No need to go over the top.
 
nairbe said:
OK fair enough, then the switch shot goes this really is illegal if you cannot stand as what you are, the short ball is out as it really is not in the spirit of the game, what else do we want to out law in our weakness. Bowlers have been knocking the Bailes off by accident for as long as the game has existed and now we have one serial offender we change the rules. Time to revoke the leg theory rules as this was all contrived to make it easy for the most hated Australian player in history, just happens to be the best bat ever as well but never mind.
Click to expand...

I get your point...even if it was slightly over the top in the reasoning about the bailes, I think the issue is getting the right balance for the bowler and batsman, at the moment its too much in the bowlers favour imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top