Talk:No-ball

message: NO BALLS ARE NOT UNCOMMON  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.146.17 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added such a discussion to bowling (cricket). -dmmaus 01:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: when the ball is no ball.... the batsman hits it in the air..... 
the catch is taken..... they run and completes a single.....
now my doubt.... for a no ball the batsman gets the runs he scored as if it were a normal ball....
so if it was a normal ball when catch is taken he gets no runs......
so if it is a no ball does the same happen....
ie does the batting team get only one run for the no ball in this case and the same batsman takes strike....
or does the batting team get two runs....... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raufismail (talk • contribs) 08:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Scoring when ball is no ball''' 

message: Can this be any part of the article?
Doosraful (doo-srah-fool) refers to Mohammad Ashraful's bizarre delivery that got AB de Villiers out on day the second day of Bangladesh vs. South Africa test (February 22, 2008). The delivery is unique due to the fact that the ball bounced twice on the pitch before de Villiers hit it. According to the Laws of Cricket a ball bouncing more than twice must be declared no ball. As the "Doosraful" delivery bounces only two times, it is a completely legal delivery. This is the only instance in modern day cricket where a ball was bowled with two bounces. - de Villiers's bizarre dismissal, The History of its naming, Video of the "Doosraful" Delivery
Think about it. Looks a like a good possibility. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doosraful 

message: The illegal action quoted as "If the ball bounces twice or more than twice" is plain wrong.
http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html
The correct rule says:
6. Ball bouncing more than twice or rolling along the ground
The umpire at the bowler's end shall call and signal No ball if a ball which he considers to have been delivered, without having previously touched the bat or person of the striker,
either (i) bounces more than twice
or (ii) rolls along the ground
before it reaches the popping crease.
Yes, the ECB have banned it this year because they have deemed it "against the spirit of the game" but the official rules still permit the ball to bounce up to two times before reaches the popping crease.
http://www.cricinfo.com/countycricket2010/content/story/462564.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.53.228 (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the ball bounces twice or more than twice? 

message: The sentence "if the batsman is out of the crease, it's not a no ball" has been removed from the "Illegal action by the bowler" section.  This is because the position of the batsman has no effect at all on whether the delivery is legal or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.19.241 (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  if the batsman is out of the crease, it's not a no ball? 

message: Although there is a stub article on the Free Hit, there was already more detail and referencing about it here than there, and I have suggested that we should merge it in here. The Free Hit is now central to most competition cricket except Test Cricket and it is just one component of the no ball.
I have now attempted to add the historic Free Hit context here but I don't seem to be able to access any archives of the primary source material from ICC, IPL etc. Can anyone help with narrative and references to flesh out the historic development of the Free Hit over the last few years? Where and when did it originate? Which competition had it first? Who promoted its adoption? When exactly did the ICC reg change from front-foot no ball to any foot fault no ball?  What are the unlegislated conventions in use, e.g. about the extent of fielding changes permitted when the striker changes or the field was illegally set? Where is the supporting documentation? Are there any variations in recreational cricket competition rules with interesting or eccentric commentary?
Atconsul (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Free Hit and its history 

message: I've changed the wording here because the Laws don't use the word 'intent' much. I've tried to paraphrase the Law without copying it by going for "If the bowler breaks the non-striker's wicket during the act of delivery (unless he is attempting to run out the non-striker)." which leaves the entry as neutral as the Law itself about whether the Umpire needs to take a view on whether the actions amount to intent, and what that might entail. Strictly even this is too many words at the moment, because under the current Law (but not the 2017 changes, nor the various professional regulations) the bowler cannot run out the non-striker during the act of delivery. But that's more for the Run Out wikipage...
There's a more substantial point here about what happens next in the game. If the bowler is attempting to run out the non-striker, the result must always be a Dead ball, either automatically (because the non-striker is Out) or non-automatically, as the umpire is required to call Dead ball when the attempt fails. 
Therefore if we were to add more words here, they should rather be about whether the batsman is out or not rather than whether he is in the crease or not. 
But any such expansion again wouldn't now really be about No ball, it would be about Run out, therefore I have resisted the temptation to add more.
Atconsul (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the Non-Striker's Wicket when Attempting Run Out 

message: The term "Striker's End Umpire" used here is preferred to the commonly-used term 'square leg umpire' for several reasons:
- That's the way it's written in the Laws of cricket and all known significant playing regulations.
- The Striker's End Umpire stands at point instead of square leg in several common circumstances:
- If sun and glare makes it difficult for the umpire to see properly from square leg.
- If the fielding team place a fielder close in at square leg (it is the umpire who is obliged to move in this case)
- If there is a left-hand and right-hand batter together at the crease and they run during the over. 
It saves time for the umpire to stay where they are, especially in amateur cricket, where umpire physical fitness criteria are not prescribed.
- Any other reason the umpire judges beneficial
The umpire will inform the batters when adopting an alternate position.
Wikipedia already benefits from (most of) this explanation, it is made in umpire (cricket) so it only needs a hyperlink here from no-ball. Atconsul (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striker's End Umpire 

message: Following a rather unexpectedly insistent reversal of my undo, where a reader has rather supposed that an "e.g." is indicated, I read a genuine difficulty in understanding. 
So here is the point of substance: as discussed in the article in the sub-section 'dangerous or unfair,' dangerous or unfair play arises fom breaches of Law 41 that may cause the umpire to adjudge a no-ball. These are the dangerous or unfair cases that are introduced exhaustively in one sentence in the lead, hence "i.e." is correct.
I suppose one difficulty in understanding here is that one might well reason that *any* of the many no-ball cases in the whole article is at least 'unfair' to the extent that the batting team is given a fair ball and a penalty run in compensation, and that is true, but only the cases discussed are no-balls because they are judged unfair under Law 41 and hence have futher repercussions. So far the article has not felt compelled to stray further into territory that probably requires specialist treatment in Fair_and_unfair_play but each case does have its own numbered subclause in Law 41 (41.6, 41.7, 41.8)
Please continue discussion here if needed rather than to uncorrect the current -correct- content again. Or feel free to rewrite or add if you have grasped all the nuances and can improve the clarity. Thanks. Atconsul (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous or Unfair Cases