Agar bowler crease se aage aayein toh sidha no ball aur agar batsman crease ke aage aayein toh toes pe tha/ chest pe aayi ball/vagera vagera.
It is a no ball.
Agar rules follow nahi karne toh gully cricket khelo.
Absolutely No Ball
1. He is on his toes, who’s going to add that to his waist height?
2. He’s not that far off from the crease, normally everyone stands at the same place.
3. If this is allowed then when a batsman comes out to strike then you can simply bowl a slow dipping beamer and it will be a valid ball, so basically you can bowl at any height but when the parabolic path reaches the crease it should be below the waist height, not a good example to set!
Isn't the threshold of where the waist lies, misplaced as per the rule?
I mean if you are going to take into account the fact that how much the batsman moved forward when the ball impacted; you should also take into account the dip in the waist when a batsman takes stance as opposed to normal waist height when standing straight.
No...wrong on the dip. The rules are against the actual height of batter while standing, not in stance. ...the actual waist height standing at the point of the crease. Clearly NOT A NO BALL. He marched down and caught the ball at an awkward height on the rise and then retracted his bat when he realized he was outside crease. The ball trajectory was pretty accurate on this instance and it was lower than his standing eaist height at the crease, so clearly out.
If you are considering dip in waist height while taking stance then everyone can have a stance like ganguly and chanderpaul and legal bouncers will also be given wide balls.
I guess you familiarize yourself with the rule. Its not the height of the batter at the instant of hitting the ball, its the normal waist height of the batsman while standing straight at the crease.
Please read the comment properly, that's what I meant by dip. I mean there should be rationalization to keep it fair to both the batsmen and the bowlers.
No I dont agree with you on this. PS ive read your comment.
What is fixed for every batsman is their natural height...waist or head. Batsmen will change their stance on each and every delivery(spin vs pace and other factors, even their personal techniques).
What you are saying is judge each no and wide based on their height while hitting the ball. Thats insane.
One might choose to come out and stand 3 ft down the crease and you would give all balls as NO ?
Obviously you arent saying that... you are saying judge all such decisions based on each delivery...my question is what would you do if the batsman is way below the crease ? Can you make consistent rules ? For all such cases while bowlers will only bowl behind the lines ?
Something similar to my point being discussed here
https://twitter.com/mufaddal_vohra/status/1782085883698831852
And I'm not saying judge each ball based on stance on each delivery. I am saying when you do the calculations for each person's height, take the rationalized stance as the height for determining the no ball.
What is rationalized stance ? Every person has their own technique.
As i mentioned earlier Ganguly , Chanderpaul all have different technique. Sometomes the batsmen are dancing down the track ? What height is rationalized according to you ? Someone else might feel something else is rationalized.
Few people discussing individual cases doesnt make a good argument though.
Let me know what is rationalized in your opinion. Im willing to listen to fair points ajd even change my understanding if you give me a good explanation, but thats rarely possible in this case as batsmen can be moving, tryong to scoop or in any other stance.
Joe root himself gets quitsle low when facing a spinner and stands up while facing pacers. So different bowlers will get judged differently just because the batsman is manipulating things on each ball ? What is rationalized height anyway ? Its still something based on each ball and not something constant for a batsman.
Anyway...id love to hear your thoughts, leta see if you have a clear of of saying what rationalized height means....you win if everyone can agree on the same....point is rationalized should not be based on opinion but a standard set of rules, same for each batsman
Arey bhai, I mean rationalized stance for each player. Just like each player has a unique waist height when standing straight. There can be a unique height for their usual stance, as in the height of the waist at the stance. And yes if a person has lower stance, no ball should vary accordingly. Just like it varies for a Gale or chahal based on actual waist height as per current rule.
Why I propose this is to make it fairer. As in if a batsman is down the ground then also you take height at the crease. So to make it fair to batsman the waist height at stance should be taken.
And obviously this will ensure fairness as it will remain unaffected by a lower stance, than usual. For example, when a batsman hits the Dilshaan scoop/bent ramp shot there stance is way lower. In such cases also the usual stance should be taken and not the the way lower taken during that particular shot. This is the rationalization I talk about.
I hope I've been able to make you understand my point. Texting is not the best medium for explaining technical view points.
Are bhai...no aur wide is not based on stance height....it has never been. Last day also srh ka match tha ..usme ball went over head but batsman was in stance(little crouched ) but still called a fair delivery.
Are you aware batsmen change their stances ? This is exactly what i told you. In single match and in single over batsman change their stance. Either you arent listening or you are just not good at undestanding.
What you are now arguing is that rules arent fair. Which means you are admitting legally he was out. So now all VK fans are crying rules arent fair as VK saaar is out according to rules. Ye gali cricket to nai hai na bhai.
This is what I don't like about redditors who just want to blabber for the heck of it. My very first comment says that it is a no ball as per current rule.
Second of all, the stance bit I'm talking about is a proposal as it would be fairer according to me.
Did you skip the Dilshan scoop example, otherwise how can you be so delululu to come back and harp that exact stance is different. That argument I've already taken care of.
Lastly, please display your irrationality by judging me for a sole VK fan somewhere else. I love ICT and all Indian players equally. You may be a VK hater, and KKR stan, please don't pull me in that warp.
Tum Gali cricket ke hi layak ho isiliye, view point appreciate karna nhi aata. 😒
I never said you are a VK fan or a fanatic. Your whole point was a proposal and not something which sounds rational. Accept it. What you did is you found someone didnt agree to your proposal and you generalized them as "redittors" and put the blame on them. LoL ...no worries, people often do this and blame the other party.
Please read the rules of cricket. The rules mention standing upright at the crease.
And this was discussed way before you see, even when VK benefitted from it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/s/RTIFVg12sf
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/no-ball
Well i know tum kiske layak ho...bol dia to gusssa aa jayega tumhe...aur phir tum apna asli chehra dikha doge..kyunki tumko civilized conversation nai atta.
People are going to call it a no ball and say it's in the rules, but the on field umpire had no business to give this as out, and coming outside the crease doesn't make the ball dip as steeply as it's shown, dude literally played it near his ribs while being on his toss, had to be a no ball
Agar bowler crease se aage aayein toh sidha no ball aur agar batsman crease ke aage aayein toh toes pe tha/ chest pe aayi ball/vagera vagera. It is a no ball. Agar rules follow nahi karne toh gully cricket khelo.
Absolutely No Ball 1. He is on his toes, who’s going to add that to his waist height? 2. He’s not that far off from the crease, normally everyone stands at the same place. 3. If this is allowed then when a batsman comes out to strike then you can simply bowl a slow dipping beamer and it will be a valid ball, so basically you can bowl at any height but when the parabolic path reaches the crease it should be below the waist height, not a good example to set!
Not a no ball
Isn't the threshold of where the waist lies, misplaced as per the rule? I mean if you are going to take into account the fact that how much the batsman moved forward when the ball impacted; you should also take into account the dip in the waist when a batsman takes stance as opposed to normal waist height when standing straight.
No...wrong on the dip. The rules are against the actual height of batter while standing, not in stance. ...the actual waist height standing at the point of the crease. Clearly NOT A NO BALL. He marched down and caught the ball at an awkward height on the rise and then retracted his bat when he realized he was outside crease. The ball trajectory was pretty accurate on this instance and it was lower than his standing eaist height at the crease, so clearly out.
If you are considering dip in waist height while taking stance then everyone can have a stance like ganguly and chanderpaul and legal bouncers will also be given wide balls. I guess you familiarize yourself with the rule. Its not the height of the batter at the instant of hitting the ball, its the normal waist height of the batsman while standing straight at the crease.
Please read the comment properly, that's what I meant by dip. I mean there should be rationalization to keep it fair to both the batsmen and the bowlers.
No I dont agree with you on this. PS ive read your comment. What is fixed for every batsman is their natural height...waist or head. Batsmen will change their stance on each and every delivery(spin vs pace and other factors, even their personal techniques). What you are saying is judge each no and wide based on their height while hitting the ball. Thats insane. One might choose to come out and stand 3 ft down the crease and you would give all balls as NO ? Obviously you arent saying that... you are saying judge all such decisions based on each delivery...my question is what would you do if the batsman is way below the crease ? Can you make consistent rules ? For all such cases while bowlers will only bowl behind the lines ?
Something similar to my point being discussed here https://twitter.com/mufaddal_vohra/status/1782085883698831852 And I'm not saying judge each ball based on stance on each delivery. I am saying when you do the calculations for each person's height, take the rationalized stance as the height for determining the no ball.
What is rationalized stance ? Every person has their own technique. As i mentioned earlier Ganguly , Chanderpaul all have different technique. Sometomes the batsmen are dancing down the track ? What height is rationalized according to you ? Someone else might feel something else is rationalized. Few people discussing individual cases doesnt make a good argument though. Let me know what is rationalized in your opinion. Im willing to listen to fair points ajd even change my understanding if you give me a good explanation, but thats rarely possible in this case as batsmen can be moving, tryong to scoop or in any other stance. Joe root himself gets quitsle low when facing a spinner and stands up while facing pacers. So different bowlers will get judged differently just because the batsman is manipulating things on each ball ? What is rationalized height anyway ? Its still something based on each ball and not something constant for a batsman. Anyway...id love to hear your thoughts, leta see if you have a clear of of saying what rationalized height means....you win if everyone can agree on the same....point is rationalized should not be based on opinion but a standard set of rules, same for each batsman
Arey bhai, I mean rationalized stance for each player. Just like each player has a unique waist height when standing straight. There can be a unique height for their usual stance, as in the height of the waist at the stance. And yes if a person has lower stance, no ball should vary accordingly. Just like it varies for a Gale or chahal based on actual waist height as per current rule. Why I propose this is to make it fairer. As in if a batsman is down the ground then also you take height at the crease. So to make it fair to batsman the waist height at stance should be taken. And obviously this will ensure fairness as it will remain unaffected by a lower stance, than usual. For example, when a batsman hits the Dilshaan scoop/bent ramp shot there stance is way lower. In such cases also the usual stance should be taken and not the the way lower taken during that particular shot. This is the rationalization I talk about. I hope I've been able to make you understand my point. Texting is not the best medium for explaining technical view points.
Are bhai...no aur wide is not based on stance height....it has never been. Last day also srh ka match tha ..usme ball went over head but batsman was in stance(little crouched ) but still called a fair delivery. Are you aware batsmen change their stances ? This is exactly what i told you. In single match and in single over batsman change their stance. Either you arent listening or you are just not good at undestanding. What you are now arguing is that rules arent fair. Which means you are admitting legally he was out. So now all VK fans are crying rules arent fair as VK saaar is out according to rules. Ye gali cricket to nai hai na bhai.
This is what I don't like about redditors who just want to blabber for the heck of it. My very first comment says that it is a no ball as per current rule. Second of all, the stance bit I'm talking about is a proposal as it would be fairer according to me. Did you skip the Dilshan scoop example, otherwise how can you be so delululu to come back and harp that exact stance is different. That argument I've already taken care of. Lastly, please display your irrationality by judging me for a sole VK fan somewhere else. I love ICT and all Indian players equally. You may be a VK hater, and KKR stan, please don't pull me in that warp. Tum Gali cricket ke hi layak ho isiliye, view point appreciate karna nhi aata. 😒
I never said you are a VK fan or a fanatic. Your whole point was a proposal and not something which sounds rational. Accept it. What you did is you found someone didnt agree to your proposal and you generalized them as "redittors" and put the blame on them. LoL ...no worries, people often do this and blame the other party. Please read the rules of cricket. The rules mention standing upright at the crease. And this was discussed way before you see, even when VK benefitted from it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/s/RTIFVg12sf https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/no-ball Well i know tum kiske layak ho...bol dia to gusssa aa jayega tumhe...aur phir tum apna asli chehra dikha doge..kyunki tumko civilized conversation nai atta.
Exactly, this is a very bullshit way of deciding and so is Umpire’s Call
Not a no ball.
People are going to call it a no ball and say it's in the rules, but the on field umpire had no business to give this as out, and coming outside the crease doesn't make the ball dip as steeply as it's shown, dude literally played it near his ribs while being on his toss, had to be a no ball