Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[keep-it-cool]

http://ww1.mid-day.com/sports/international/2006/april/135937.htm

BLOODBATH AT KINGSTON

It’s been 30 years but the wounds are still fresh for Anshuman Gaekwad and his teammates who were at the receiving end of Michael Holding and Co’s hostility during that infamous Sabina Park Test in 1975-76.   

The hostile, intimidating, bowling targeted at the body left the Indian line-up in tatters as a result of which skipper Bishan Singh Bedi had to terminate the second innings at 97 for five, because by the time there was no one left to hold a bat! West Indies needed 12 runs for victory, which they got to win the series 2-1.

The snorters and rippers had left Gundappa Vishwanath with a crushed finger, Brijesh Patel with his upper lip cut open while Mohinder Amarnath got out trying to defend his head from getting knocked off.

But the worst hit was Gaekwad who almost got killed after being hit behind his left ear by a Holding missile before he landed up in hospital and stayed there for the next 48 hours.

The background

Clive Lloyd was losing the captaincy and was under pressure after the Trinidad defeat. (where India chased 400 plus) Somehow he kept it. After the Trinidad win, our morale was high and the atmosphere in our camp was brilliant.

West Indies won the toss and put us in. We were 130 for no loss (I was partnering Gavaskar), then to the frustration of the home team, we had another couple of good partnerships.

Intimidatory tactics

It was negative, intimidatory bowling tactics. Rather than getting the batsmen out, they were trying to hit the batsmen. They were going round the wicket and targeting the body. At that time there was no restriction on the number of bouncers.

The blow

I batted the whole of the first day and the incident took place close to lunch on Day Two. I was batting on 81 at that stage and was seeing the ball very well. But I did not see that ball at all… I don’t remember anything about that ball.

They came visiting
I was hit on the thumb on the previous ball and when Holding was waiting at the top of his run-up, I made some gestures that he did not like and that was it. The doctors put me under observation for 24 hours and then it increased to 48 hours.

Deryck Murray, Lawrence Rowe and Vivian Richards visited me in hospital. Since I did not see the ball, I asked them: Was it a beamer or a bouncer? Murray quipped, ‘forget it, Sonny! You could not have done anything about it’.

A bad dream
Looking back, it is like a bad dream. But fortunately the blow did not leave any mental scars and did not affect my career. Though I missed a few series I went on to play all the series against West Indies. I did not suffer from the fear psychosis because I did not see the ball at all. I might have suffered from it had I tried to fend that delivery.
 
 
To call a crowd ‘a crowd’ in Jamaica is a misnomer. It should be called a mob. The way they shrieked and howled every time Holding bowled was positively horrible. They encouraged him with shouts of ‘Kill him Maan!’, ‘Hit him Maan!’ ‘Knock his head off Mike!’
— Sunil Gavaskar’s description of the atmosphere during the Sabina Park Test of the 1976 series in his book Sunny Days
 

[dhruvdeepak]

scenes out of Bodyline (have you guys seen that 7-part series? wonderfully made) Brave souls those cricketers.

[Blwe_torch]

Great post!
Applause!

[keep-it-cool]

Great post!
Applause!

thanx

[worma]

Isn't it common amongst all pacemen to use bouncers in two ways - (1) get the batsmen to hook/pull and top edge (2) Get the batsmen to fend (if they can't duck) and thus edge to close-in fielders (what Sehwag was doing in recent test series)

So...what is the problem with the WI tactics? Why didn't our batsmen keep ducking? Because they got *found out*..right? Brett Lee faced the English barrage for more than an hour at Edgbaston....and we are in awe of English attack today. So, what is the difference?

[Blwe_torch]

Isn't it common amongst all pacemen to use bouncers in two ways - (1) get the batsmen to hook/pull and top edge (2) Get the batsmen to fend (if they can't duck) and thus edge to close-in fielders (what Sehwag was doing in recent test series)

So...what is the problem with the WI tactics? Why didn't our batsmen keep ducking? Because they got *found out*..right? Brett Lee faced the English barrage for more than an hour at Edgbaston....and we are in awe of English attack today. So, what is the difference?

You are right!
Cricketers should not complain of intimidatory bowling.
Only beamers aimed at the body may be actually dangerous.
There can be no magic ball, which just comes out of thin air to hit you.
It is always the batsmens' fault.
One can bowl anything within cricket rules. Period!

[keep-it-cool]

I see no problem with intimidatory bowling. Everything has a first time ... and bouncers to tailenders was not the "done" thing. Hence the uproar, I think. Havent we seen Courtney Walsh hurt Venkatapathy Raju or Anil Kumble and other tailenders copping it as well? If standing your ground now till an umpire gives you out is fine (it wasn't earlier till more ppl started doing it), then why should bouncers be against the spirit? Ban them if you want to stop this, but if you allow them then be prepared to face them ...

[senthilpeter]

Isn't it common amongst all pacemen to use bouncers in two ways - (1) get the batsmen to hook/pull and top edge (2) Get the batsmen to fend (if they can't duck) and thus edge to close-in fielders (what Sehwag was doing in recent test series)

So...what is the problem with the WI tactics? Why didn't our batsmen keep ducking? Because they got *found out*..right? Brett Lee faced the English barrage for more than an hour at Edgbaston....and we are in awe of English attack today. So, what is the difference?

Valid point Worma. I'm only guessing that going by those day's standards, this type of bowling probably was not good 'hospitality', so our fellas lodged protests 

[senthilpeter]

I see no problem with intimidatory bowling. Everything has a first time ... and bouncers to tailenders was not the "done" thing. Hence the uproar, I think. Havent we seen Courtney Walsh hurt Venkatapathy Raju or Anil Kumble and other tailenders copping it as well? If standing your ground now till an umpire gives you out is fine (it wasn't earlier till more ppl started doing it), then why should bouncers be against the spirit? Ban them if you want to stop this, but if you allow them then be prepared to face them ...

yup, and haven't tailenders started scoring runs and blocking till u are a frustrated bast...rd?  they've let their end of the bargain down too

[Blwe_torch]

Significantly, they had less protection as well.
But cricket is and was, always a dangerous game!

[keep-it-cool]

I see no problem with intimidatory bowling. Everything has a first time ... and bouncers to tailenders was not the "done" thing. Hence the uproar, I think. Havent we seen Courtney Walsh hurt Venkatapathy Raju or Anil Kumble and other tailenders copping it as well? If standing your ground now till an umpire gives you out is fine (it wasn't earlier till more ppl started doing it), then why should bouncers be against the spirit? Ban them if you want to stop this, but if you allow them then be prepared to face them ...

yup, and haven't tailenders started scoring runs and blocking till u are a frustrated bast...rd?  they've let their end of the bargain down too

yeah, the bangladeshis should have declared their bowling, once Jason Gillespie went past 60

[ruchir]

I never heard Sunny G complaining about bouncers. Nor have heard Sachin, Dravid, Dhoni complain. The reason, I feel, is that these guys could/can handle about anything dished out to them; even if they are hit on the body. They can handle the pain of getting hit on the body. My feeling is that only those guys complain who, either are incapable of saving themselves from rising deliveries or are plain afraid of getting hit on the body.

Sachin was bleeding from nose in his first Test. He dismisses that incident as nothing. Dhoni doesn't care much about getting hit on the head. Kumble took Lara out despite a broken jaw. To these guys, balls directed at body are like any other deliveris. They just deal with them, they don't complain.

In his comments, Gaekwad says that the blow did not leave any mental scar but I think he is lying. The fact that he is talking about it so eloquently, specially saying that there is no mental scar, is a tell-tale sign of the scar that blow actually left.

I feel, bouncers are legit deliveries that a bowler can use to get a wicket. Rarely is the intention to actually hurt the batsman; more often than not it is to intimidate the batsman into gifting his wicket. However, beamers are a different case alltogether. My opinion is that unless the ball is soaking wet, a beamer is always intentional, directed to hit the body. How can a ball *slip* out of the fingers and still go 90MPH straight towards the head of the batsman? If it is really *slipping*, it will barely reach the batsman rolling, 'cause when the ball slips out, it does not retain the force and velocity that the bowler is trying to put in it.

[senthilpeter]

I never heard Sunny G complaining about bouncers. Nor have heard Sachin, Dravid, Dhoni complain. The reason, I feel, is that these guys could/can handle about anything dished out to them; even if they are hit on the body. They can handle the pain of getting hit on the body. My feeling is that only those guys complain who, either are incapable of saving themselves from rising deliveries or are plain afraid of getting hit on the body.

Sachin was bleeding from nose in his first Test. He dismisses that incident as nothing. Dhoni doesn't care much about getting hit on the head. Kumble took Lara out despite a broken jaw. To these guys, balls directed at body are like any other deliveris. They just deal with them, they don't complain.

In his comments, Gaekwad says that the blow did not leave any mental scar but I think he is lying. The fact that he is talking about it so eloquently, specially saying that there is no mental scar, is a tell-tale sign of the scar that blow actually left.

I feel, bouncers are legit deliveries that a bowler can use to get a wicket. Rarely is the intention to actually hurt the batsman; more often than not it is to intimidate the batsman into gifting his wicket. However, beamers are a different case alltogether. My opinion is that unless the ball is soaking wet, a beamer is always intentional, directed to hit the body. How can a ball *slip* out of the fingers and still go 90MPH straight towards the head of the batsman? If it is really *slipping*, it will barely reach the batsman rolling, 'cause when the ball slips out, it does not retain the force and velocity that the bowler is trying to put in it.

I think one big difference is that today's batsmen know that anything within the laws is fair game to get them out. Back then, I think people still expected a 'bit of hospitality'  Look at the funny Gaekwad admission that he 'made gestures' to Holding and copped the payback the very next ball. I say what kind of a batsman was he, if he couldn't handle a bowler in rage for one ball

As to Sunny G, we'll he may not have complained cos he came thru unscathed..or was good enough to.

[keep-it-cool]

I never heard Sunny G complaining about bouncers. Nor have heard Sachin, Dravid, Dhoni complain. The reason, I feel, is that these guys could/can handle about anything dished out to them; even if they are hit on the body. They can handle the pain of getting hit on the body. My feeling is that only those guys complain who, either are incapable of saving themselves from rising deliveries or are plain afraid of getting hit on the body.

Sachin was bleeding from nose in his first Test. He dismisses that incident as nothing. Dhoni doesn't care much about getting hit on the head. Kumble took Lara out despite a broken jaw. To these guys, balls directed at body are like any other deliveris. They just deal with them, they don't complain.

In his comments, Gaekwad says that the blow did not leave any mental scar but I think he is lying. The fact that he is talking about it so eloquently, specially saying that there is no mental scar, is a tell-tale sign of the scar that blow actually left.

I feel, bouncers are legit deliveries that a bowler can use to get a wicket. Rarely is the intention to actually hurt the batsman; more often than not it is to intimidate the batsman into gifting his wicket. However, beamers are a different case alltogether. My opinion is that unless the ball is soaking wet, a beamer is always intentional, directed to hit the body. How can a ball *slip* out of the fingers and still go 90MPH straight towards the head of the batsman? If it is really *slipping*, it will barely reach the batsman rolling, 'cause when the ball slips out, it does not retain the force and velocity that the bowler is trying to put in it.

I think one big difference is that today's batsmen know that anything within the laws is fair game to get them out. Back then, I think people still expected a 'bit of hospitality'  Look at the funny Gaekwad admission that he 'made gestures' to Holding and copped the payback the very next ball. I say what kind of a batsman was he, if he couldn't handle a bowler in rage for one ball

As to Sunny G, we'll he may not have complained cos he came thru unscathed..or was good enough to.

just one thing .. folks earlier did not have as much protective gear as they do nowadays ...

[senthilpeter]

just one thing .. folks earlier did not have as much protective gear as they do nowadays ...

but wouldn't that be the first and best reason why they'd have been better prepared to face these deliveries? Or were they basically banking on the bowlers being 'gentle' men? Maybe it was the latter.

[keep-it-cool]

just one thing .. folks earlier did not have as much protective gear as they do nowadays ...

but wouldn't that be the first and best reason why they'd have been better prepared to face these deliveries? Or were they basically banking on the bowlers being 'gentle' men? Maybe it was the latter.

well they should have been ... but at that point it was against "convention" to bowl short consistently at batsmen .. forget tailenders! It just came out of the blue for them .. and rather than face this head on, most of them preferred to take the "spoilt child" way out by complaining bitterly. It is like, nowadays no one bats an eyelid even if a batsman stands his ground despite getting a clear edge ... out then, walking was a done thing till some guys decided to change things.

[worma]

I never heard Sunny G complaining about bouncers. Nor have heard Sachin, Dravid, Dhoni complain. The reason, I feel, is that these guys could/can handle about anything dished out to them; even if they are hit on the body. They can handle the pain of getting hit on the body. My feeling is that only those guys complain who, either are incapable of saving themselves from rising deliveries or are plain afraid of getting hit on the body.

Sachin was bleeding from nose in his first Test. He dismisses that incident as nothing. Dhoni doesn't care much about getting hit on the head. Kumble took Lara out despite a broken jaw. To these guys, balls directed at body are like any other deliveris. They just deal with them, they don't complain.

In his comments, Gaekwad says that the blow did not leave any mental scar but I think he is lying. The fact that he is talking about it so eloquently, specially saying that there is no mental scar, is a tell-tale sign of the scar that blow actually left.

I feel, bouncers are legit deliveries that a bowler can use to get a wicket. Rarely is the intention to actually hurt the batsman; more often than not it is to intimidate the batsman into gifting his wicket. However, beamers are a different case alltogether. My opinion is that unless the ball is soaking wet, a beamer is always intentional, directed to hit the body. How can a ball *slip* out of the fingers and still go 90MPH straight towards the head of the batsman? If it is really *slipping*, it will barely reach the batsman rolling, 'cause when the ball slips out, it does not retain the force and velocity that the bowler is trying to put in it.

I think one big difference is that today's batsmen know that anything within the laws is fair game to get them out. Back then, I think people still expected a 'bit of hospitality'  Look at the funny Gaekwad admission that he 'made gestures' to Holding and copped the payback the very next ball. I say what kind of a batsman was he, if he couldn't handle a bowler in rage for one ball

As to Sunny G, we'll he may not have complained cos he came thru unscathed..or was good enough to.

just one thing .. folks earlier did not have as much protective gear as they do nowadays ...

Yeah agreed....but bouncers should have still been avoidable...if one has the technique? Bodyline is different...because there were little ways of avoiding that.

[keep-it-cool]

I never heard Sunny G complaining about bouncers. Nor have heard Sachin, Dravid, Dhoni complain. The reason, I feel, is that these guys could/can handle about anything dished out to them; even if they are hit on the body. They can handle the pain of getting hit on the body. My feeling is that only those guys complain who, either are incapable of saving themselves from rising deliveries or are plain afraid of getting hit on the body.

Sachin was bleeding from nose in his first Test. He dismisses that incident as nothing. Dhoni doesn't care much about getting hit on the head. Kumble took Lara out despite a broken jaw. To these guys, balls directed at body are like any other deliveris. They just deal with them, they don't complain.

In his comments, Gaekwad says that the blow did not leave any mental scar but I think he is lying. The fact that he is talking about it so eloquently, specially saying that there is no mental scar, is a tell-tale sign of the scar that blow actually left.

I feel, bouncers are legit deliveries that a bowler can use to get a wicket. Rarely is the intention to actually hurt the batsman; more often than not it is to intimidate the batsman into gifting his wicket. However, beamers are a different case alltogether. My opinion is that unless the ball is soaking wet, a beamer is always intentional, directed to hit the body. How can a ball *slip* out of the fingers and still go 90MPH straight towards the head of the batsman? If it is really *slipping*, it will barely reach the batsman rolling, 'cause when the ball slips out, it does not retain the force and velocity that the bowler is trying to put in it.

I think one big difference is that today's batsmen know that anything within the laws is fair game to get them out. Back then, I think people still expected a 'bit of hospitality'  Look at the funny Gaekwad admission that he 'made gestures' to Holding and copped the payback the very next ball. I say what kind of a batsman was he, if he couldn't handle a bowler in rage for one ball

As to Sunny G, we'll he may not have complained cos he came thru unscathed..or was good enough to.

just one thing .. folks earlier did not have as much protective gear as they do nowadays ...

Yeah agreed....but bouncers should have still been avoidable...if one has the technique? Bodyline is different...because there were little ways of avoiding that.

Agree

[keep-it-cool]

I think this match in question saw something very similar to bodyline .. "around the wicket and targeting the body with bouncers"

But then, did we not also complain about Ashley Giles' negative tactics to SRT .. in my view, just coz he could not find a way to combat it. And then SRT himself goes and uses it when he bowls!!! But we fans, I guess, will never forgive Nasser Hussain and Ashley Giles for that - although what they did was simply identify an area of weakness in SRT's batting and exploit it.

But, we are like that only .. sometimes bouncers, sometimes left arm spin outside leg!!

[worma]

I think this match in question saw something very similar to bodyline .. "around the wicket and targeting the body with bouncers"

But then, did we not also complain about Ashley Giles' negative tactics to SRT .. in my view, just coz he could not find a way to combat it. And then SRT himself goes and uses it when he bowls!!! But we fans, I guess, will never forgive Nasser Hussain and Ashley Giles for that - although what they did was simply identify an area of weakness in SRT's batting and exploit it.

But, we are like that only .. sometimes bouncers, sometimes left arm spin outside leg!!

nahi boss....there is a HUGE difference between what Giles did...and what Sachin does or even Kumble did (and Hussain, gleefully, took the same line of argument as you are taking :-) )

What Giles did was negative because he was bowling outside leg and not turning it in enough for it to become playable for the batsman. Such bowling is *officially* deemed negative in the rule-book and the umpire would have warned him for it. Ofcourse, that particular case may have been borderline (or maybe umpire's judgment gave some benefit to bowler). Sachin got *frustrated* because he was not able to reach it to play it, as hardly any batsman would be able to do, which is why indeed that ICC rule about negative line of bowling is made. Remember that Sachin is probably the best (IMO *the* best) player of that line of bowling, from outside leg turning in.....that is one line which no bowler has successfully tied him down with, even when bowled in the right spirit of the law, because of the different kinds of sweeps that he does so well.....thus making it impossible for captains to use it in a defensive way with a short or regular fineleg in place.

What Sachin or Kumble (and Warne also) bowls from round the stumps is not negative line, because these blokes turn it in enough for the delivery to become playable for batsmen, if they have the skills. Problem being, most batsmen don't...which is why it is a perfect defensive line to hold one end up...and even test the batsmen into playing false shots across the line. Kumble, mind you, can bowl it only if there is enough rought outside the leg to assist him into spinning the ball enough.

And this is why the ICC rules don't deem such line 'negative tactic' in all the cases.

[keep-it-cool]

Look Worma, without getting too technical .. if it is too wide to be played, term it a wide and call it ... what is this being "negative" all about ... a bouncer in the last ball of an over to prevent a batsman from taking a single to retain strike is negative? or avoiding taking a single to keep a batsman off strike is negative? Maybe, but as long as it is legal it is fine ... let teams decide how they want to play .. if there is a trend that everyone does not like, ban it or curtail it .. like they did with bouncers being restricted to 2 an over ... but why put this moral obligation on someone?

am not saying sachin is not the best player of that shot ... but he definitely had problems that were visible .... nasser or giles or someone spotted that and opted for the line ... negative for you probably, good thinking for me! at least he managed what most other spinners could not

i agree sachin and kumble do not bowl as negatively ... but they do so at times ... very often when we under pressure in tests with the opposition going for quick runs .. why, even piyush chawla did it to flintoff ... and he was definitely not attacking ...

[toney]

kic, I have seen Kumble bowl the negative line well outside the leg stump once at Eden Gardens when Kirsten and company were doing well. Maybe, once or twice after that. And I agree, this is just as bad as the Giles tactic.
But SRT bowls the leg stump line mostly in ODIs recently. This is a genuine tactic. You know how strict umpires are, about wides in ODIs. What SRT does is turn the ball from outside the legstump. This makes it difficult for a batsman to get the ball away even though he is forced to look for runs, this being a limited overs game.

The Lloyd tactic may have been born out of frustration but it ended up bein an excellent tactic. What is negative about a high rising delivery? Doesnt it give the good batsman ample opportunity to play an attacking shot? Doesnt a skillful batsman look to weave his way out of trouble against a more difficult delivery? Did the WI actually bowl beamers? Otherwise, this was an excellent tactic and I'll say this: if the Indians chickened out, they deserved to lose this game. Injury is not an excuse.
Even after these tactics, cricket still allows unlimited deliveries below shoulder level. There is an intimidatory bowling clause somewhere but this is bull* IMO and should be removed. If it is intimidatory or goes against the spirit of cricket, even single delivery above chest height shouldnt be allowed.

[ruchir]

I think *negative* may not be the right word to the kind of bowling Giles did to Sachin.

Take example of Boxing. When the two (or any one) boxers are tired, they hold each other's arm around the elbows, butt their heads together and just stand there wasting time, occasionally hitting mild punches on the sides. It is then, that the refree comes in, breaks them up and starts the fight back. Why does he have to break them up? Because what the boxers are doing is unproductive and does not look good to the audience. It is considered as "waste of time" by boxing federations. They want boxers to continue to fight. It looks good on screen and in the ring. Brings in big money. At one time WBA requested Mike Tyson (unofficially) to prolong his fights and not finish them in 1st round.

Apply that logic to Cricket. What Giles was doing was not harming anyone. It was a legit tactic, used to stop flow of runs. But for the viewers, it was extreemly boring. And we all know how much ICC is concerned about the viewers. So, they decided to nip this trend in the bud by saying that if the line is outside leg and the delivery continue to remain like that then the umpire has an option of cautioning the bowler.

I think the concept of *negative* cricket started because it was boring to the viewing public. It surely served a purpose, specially for the fielding side. But it did not serve ICC/Administrator's purpose 'cause it made the game boring.

Imagine this. Giles bowls around the leg to stop runs and it is called *negatve* cricket. He is/can be cautioned by the umpire. Then how come the same Administrators don't *caution* Rahul Dravid when he takes 100 balls to 15 runs (not real example, but conveying the emotions)?? How come Dravid's batting is not called *negative* batting?? How come he is hailed as "The Wall" ?? This is what amazes me. Double Standards. Making the game batsman-friendly.

[keep-it-cool]

kic, I have seen Kumble bowl the negative line well outside the leg stump once at Eden Gardens when Kirsten and company were doing well. Maybe, once or twice after that. And I agree, this is just as bad as the Giles tactic.
But SRT bowls the leg stump line mostly in ODIs recently. This is a genuine tactic. You know how strict umpires are, about wides in ODIs. What SRT does is turn the ball from outside the legstump. This makes it difficult for a batsman to get the ball away even though he is forced to look for runs, this being a limited overs game.

The Lloyd tactic may have been born out of frustration but it ended up bein an excellent tactic. What is negative about a high rising delivery? Doesnt it give the good batsman ample opportunity to play an attacking shot? Doesnt a skillful batsman look to weave his way out of trouble against a more difficult delivery? Did the WI actually bowl beamers? Otherwise, this was an excellent tactic and I'll say this: if the Indians chickened out, they deserved to lose this game. Injury is not an excuse.
Even after these tactics, cricket still allows unlimited deliveries below shoulder level. There is an intimidatory bowling clause somewhere but this is bull* IMO and should be removed. If it is intimidatory or goes against the spirit of cricket, even single delivery above chest height shouldnt be allowed.

toney, i have no arguments with lloyd's tactics ... to me, they were perfectly within the rules and effective

what i had an issue with was an umpire being able to warn a bowler against negative bowling or a line outside legstump ... my take is either you call it a wide (if you feel it cannot be reached) or you allow it to be bowled ... where does a warning come in? By that same logic, a bouncer way over the head in the last ball of an over during a test match should also be termed negative and the bowler should be warned ... again, I am not for this, just drawing a comparison.

[worma]

I seriously don't understand what is there to debate about the negative line outside the leg (in TEST matches) that some leg (/leftarm) spinners employ. Guys this is *in the ICC rules*...I am not making it up for argument's sake....umpires can (and do) warn the bowler and captain against that kind of tactic.

And my earlier post was a detailed explanation of *why* ICC has put this in its rules. That Sachin-Giles case was the perfect example of why.

And toney, if you say so, I will believe that Kumble may have done it too....and am sure many other bowlers in the world, at various times. The umpires, I guess, are a bit tolerant (since its Test matches we are talking about) and maybe they warn only if persisted with for long time. Maybe that is why Giles got away in Bangalore.

And as you rightly pointed out, what Sachin does in ODIs or what Kumble did in recent test series against England (in Mohali, i think?) when Hussain was gleefully comparing it with his tactics of using Giles....those cases were different. There the bowler were turning the ball well enough to get the batsman to play/fend at it.

[keep-it-cool]

No debate with the rules, Worma. If they say so, then that is it. Just do not agree .. if they deem it negative, just call it a wide!

[worma]

No debate with the rules, Worma. If they say so, then that is it. Just do not agree .. if they deem it negative, just call it a wide!

Well I'm not sure if the umpire has to 'warn' or can he also 'no-ball' it. Either way, isn't it the same..the umpire trying to stop the bowler from using that tactic.

I believe it may have been kept separate from *wide* because of coflict of definition. In this tactic, the ball finally does not end up as wide of the crease as a regular wide (in test matches)....its just that the trajectory makes it near impossible for the batsman to play it.

[keep-it-cool]

a chance .. and play what is probably a much higher risk shot in order to score runs (if the field is well set on the leg side) ... now, the same match i.e. Bangalore, Sehwag had no problem going after Giles coz he was willing to take that additional risk. Sachin on the other hand was not willing to and hence went into his shell ... finally got out trying to break free. And it is not as if bowlers earlier have not tried the same tactic ... Sanath Jayasuriya bowled that same line (he could be devastating on a minefield of a pitch), else it was just a restrictive line (am not saying it was the only line he bowled), but most of our players (especially sachin) played him very well. It was only Giles that had enough of a control to keep the ball there regularly with some degree of accuracy ... and the big uproar arose, to my mind, more because sachin was not able to cope rather than a desire to see positive cricket. If in that same match, sachin had scored freely and sehwag had struggled, I doubt if there would have been such an issue made over it.

And by that same logic, a fast bowler going around the wicket and continuously bowling short to batsman should also be construed a negative line (something similar to what the English did against us in the fourth test match, last time we toured there) ... if the trajectory is similar and the leg side field is packed, it would be as difficult to get away or play as with a spinner bowling

And, if there is a rule to no-ball it, then fine. You have told a bowler this is where you get off (like with the two bouncer rule). But I doubt it; else Piyush Chawla should have been no balled at Mohali ... there was no way he was bowling to get Flintoff out when he went round the wicket with the field packed ... Flintoff tried to attack and he got out ... he could have padded those away all day if he wanted to.

[worma]

a chance .. and play what is probably a much higher risk shot in order to score runs (if the field is well set on the leg side) ... now, the same match i.e. Bangalore, Sehwag had no problem going after Giles coz he was willing to take that additional risk. Sachin on the other hand was not willing to and hence went into his shell ... finally got out trying to break free. And it is not as if bowlers earlier have not tried the same tactic ... Sanath Jayasuriya bowled that same line (he could be devastating on a minefield of a pitch), else it was just a restrictive line (am not saying it was the only line he bowled), but most of our players (especially sachin) played him very well. It was only Giles that had enough of a control to keep the ball there regularly with some degree of accuracy ... and the big uproar arose, to my mind, more because sachin was not able to cope rather than a desire to see positive cricket. If in that same match, sachin had scored freely and sehwag had struggled, I doubt if there would have been such an issue made over it.

And by that same logic, a fast bowler going around the wicket and continuously bowling short to batsman should also be construed a negative line (something similar to what the English did against us in the fourth test match, last time we toured there) ... if the trajectory is similar and the leg side field is packed, it would be as difficult to get away or play as with a spinner bowling

And, if there is a rule to no-ball it, then fine. You have told a bowler this is where you get off (like with the two bouncer rule). But I doubt it; else Piyush Chawla should have been no balled at Mohali ... there was no way he was bowling to get Flintoff out when he went round the wicket with the field packed ... Flintoff tried to attack and he got out ... he could have padded those away all day if he wanted to.

Sehwag was able to play because he moved out of the crease (sideways as well as down)...by that token most wide balls can also be played..even in tests, no??

Short bowling is not negative line....negative line is one which the batsman cannot play or *fend* in the normal course of play...its not about stopping runs only. Short bowling can be played or fended with normal game....except for the very high bouncers, which are therefore limited.

Ofcourse there was a furore because it involved Sachin :-)....but the rules were not made for Sachin....they had a purpose..its just that Sachin's case illustrated the purpose well, and in a high profile manner.

Chawla and Kumble were *not* bowling negative lines as per ICC rules....those lines were difficult to *play* but not difficult to *fend*...Flintoff did not want to keep padding.

But, I'm not sure about the no-ball part. E.g. what happens if the bowler keeps persisting with the line despite umpire's warning.

[keep-it-cool]

a chance .. and play what is probably a much higher risk shot in order to score runs (if the field is well set on the leg side) ... now, the same match i.e. Bangalore, Sehwag had no problem going after Giles coz he was willing to take that additional risk. Sachin on the other hand was not willing to and hence went into his shell ... finally got out trying to break free. And it is not as if bowlers earlier have not tried the same tactic ... Sanath Jayasuriya bowled that same line (he could be devastating on a minefield of a pitch), else it was just a restrictive line (am not saying it was the only line he bowled), but most of our players (especially sachin) played him very well. It was only Giles that had enough of a control to keep the ball there regularly with some degree of accuracy ... and the big uproar arose, to my mind, more because sachin was not able to cope rather than a desire to see positive cricket. If in that same match, sachin had scored freely and sehwag had struggled, I doubt if there would have been such an issue made over it.

And by that same logic, a fast bowler going around the wicket and continuously bowling short to batsman should also be construed a negative line (something similar to what the English did against us in the fourth test match, last time we toured there) ... if the trajectory is similar and the leg side field is packed, it would be as difficult to get away or play as with a spinner bowling

And, if there is a rule to no-ball it, then fine. You have told a bowler this is where you get off (like with the two bouncer rule). But I doubt it; else Piyush Chawla should have been no balled at Mohali ... there was no way he was bowling to get Flintoff out when he went round the wicket with the field packed ... Flintoff tried to attack and he got out ... he could have padded those away all day if he wanted to.

Sehwag was able to play because he moved out of the crease (sideways as well as down)...by that token most wide balls can also be played..even in tests, no??

Short bowling is not negative line....negative line is one which the batsman cannot play or *fend* in the normal course of play...its not about stopping runs only. Short bowling can be played or fended with normal game....except for the very high bouncers, which are therefore limited.

Ofcourse there was a furore because it involved Sachin :-)....but the rules were not made for Sachin....they had a purpose..its just that Sachin's case illustrated the purpose well, and in a high profile manner.

Chawla and Kumble were *not* bowling negative lines as per ICC rules....those lines were difficult to *play* but not difficult to *fend*...Flintoff did not want to keep padding.

But, I'm not sure about the no-ball part. E.g. what happens if the bowler keeps persisting with the line despite umpire's warning.

Fair enough .. Sehwag did make adjustments ... but, why was Giles' line difficult to "fend"; difficult to score, yes. But why cant you fend at those? If the issue was that it is too far away, then call it a wide ... if it is within reach, then fending should not be an issue, should it?

And I agree Chawla was not bowling negative as per ICC rules ... but then neither was Giles, was he? Yes, the rules were changed after that - which is fine. If he does it now, penalise him with whatever - a warning, a no ball, a fine. But why blame or deride him for what he did at that point - which is work out a good way to exercise control and let his skipper attack from the other end. If we were to judge all past actions in the context of today's rules, then the entire WI strategy in this test that we began the discussions with or the Bodyline strategy against the Aussies should also be questioned. Because even those would not be allowed as per today's rules. We still admire those guys while we continue to look down on what Giles did.

Now if differentiation is just because WI and Eng (in Bodyline) did what they did to attack while Giles did what he did in order to contain, then would we make that differentiation in the following case too?
-in a partnership if one batsman scores 120 (110) and another tailender (say a Gillespie) scores 10 (80), should be deride Gillespie coz he is playing negative cricket (i.e. just staying there)?
Or are standards there different coz these are batsmen we are talking about?

[worma]

Fair enough .. Sehwag did make adjustments ... but, why was Giles' line difficult to "fend"; difficult to score, yes. But why cant you fend at those? If the issue was that it is too far away, then call it a wide ... if it is within reach, then fending should not be an issue, should it?

W: That line is difficult to fend because the ball pitches way outside leg, and moves in enough to get it within the rules of wide (yes you can stick your pad way out and fend, although it doesnt need fending since its not going to hit the stumps). Imagine that trajectory and you would realise its nearly impossible to play (unless you anticipate and move out of crease, but that you can do even to genuine wide balls). This is the reason why ICC deemd it negative.

And I agree Chawla was not bowling negative as per ICC rules ... but then neither was Giles, was he? Yes, the rules were changed after that - which is fine. If he does it now, penalise him with whatever - a warning, a no ball, a fine. But why blame or deride him for what he did at that point - which is work out a good way to exercise control and let his skipper attack from the other end. If we were to judge all past actions in the context of today's rules, then the entire WI strategy in this test that we began the discussions with or the Bodyline strategy against the Aussies should also be questioned. Because even those would not be allowed as per today's rules. We still admire those guys while we continue to look down on what Giles did.

W: I am not sure if the ICC rules were made after that...but yes if they were then he did not break the rules (which he anyway didn't if the umpire did not warn him). Agreed that you should not use a current rule to judge the past.

Btw. that rule, under ICC test match playing conditions definition, says For bowlers attempting to utilise the rough outside a batsman’s leg stump, not necessarily as a negative tactic, the strict limited over wide interpretation shall be applied. For bowlers whom umpires consider to be bowling down the leg side as a negative tactic, the strict limited over wide interpretation shall be applied.


Now if differentiation is just because WI and Eng (in Bodyline) did what they did to attack while Giles did what he did in order to contain, then would we make that differentiation in the following case too?
-in a partnership if one batsman scores 120 (110) and another tailender (say a Gillespie) scores 10 (80), should be deride Gillespie coz he is playing negative cricket (i.e. just staying there)?
Or are standards there different coz these are batsmen we are talking about?

Agreed on this part boss :-)

[ruchir]

I seriously don't understand what is there to debate about the negative line outside the leg (in TEST matches) that some leg (/leftarm) spinners employ. Guys this is *in the ICC rules*...I am not making it up for argument's sake....umpires can (and do) warn the bowler and captain against that kind of tactic.

And my earlier post was a detailed explanation of *why* ICC has put this in its rules. That Sachin-Giles case was the perfect example of why.

worma: My part of the debate is: Is it the right thing to outlaw the legside bowling by spinners (in Tests), by ICC??

You explained in your post why ICC put this rule in place that stops bowlers from bowling the legside line. That's all fine, no one is accusing you of making up anything. I am arguing that this is a BAD law created by ICC. You base your argument on the fact that Sachin was getting *frustrated*. My argument is SO WHAT? So what if Sachin or any other batsman is getting frustrated? How does it matter? Why stop Giles from frustrating Sachin into giving his wicket away? Why stop any bowler from frustrating any batsman?

Similarly, why not penalise batsmen who bat extreemly slow in order to not get out. They frustrate bowlers. Should these batsmen be not penalised for *frustrating* bowlers, making the game boring, boring the paying public? ICC uses this logic to penalise bowlers. Why does it not use the same argument to penalise batsmen?

My argument is that this rule by ICC is a biased rule and is heavily favored towards batsmen. It is a rule that is based on a logic that is ONLY applied to bowlers and not to batsmen. In my opinion, it is the marketing aspects of the game (as I explained in my post above) that have resulted in creating of this law. ICC finds it easy to penalise bowlers for slowing down the game but not the batsmen. Hence this law.

Sachin-Giles case is the perfect example of how ICC can create BAD laws, BIASED laws, laws that favor batsmen heavily. I consider the penalisation of legside bowling a BAD thing to do. If bowlers are smart enough to stop runs by legside bowling, batsmen should be smart enough to come up with a counter. ICC should not help them by outlawing legside bowling.

[worma]

I think I already explained, in this thread, many times why IMO this law was created...because the trajectory of that line makes it difficult to play (just like the high bouncer or a regular wide ball)...not because a batsman gets frustrated or the game becomes boring to watch. Please read the arugments that I've already given.

[ruchir]

I think I already explained, in this thread, many times why IMO this law was created...because the trajectory of that line makes it difficult to play (just like the high bouncer or a regular wide ball)...not because a batsman gets frustrated or the game becomes boring to watch. Please read the arugments that I've already given.

worma: I differ here. Since we are talking about Sachin-Giles duel here, read the ball-by-ball commentary of that match here: Sachin-Giles, ball-by-ball commentary

Here are some excerpts from the match:

32.1 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, bowling left-arm over the wicket, outside the leg, allows the ball to hit pads
32.2 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, and does the same again, Ramprakash fields
32.3 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, the sequence continues, outside the leg,played withthe pad
32.4 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, once again, offers the pad, ball trickles on towards the stumps, no damage done
32.5 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, once again, takes the ball on the pad
32.6 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, lets the ball alone through to the keeper

Giles back in action now, left-arm over the wicket, silly point, forward short leg and Flintoff at the strategic short fine leg!
36.1 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, outside the leg, no shot offered
36.2 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, outside the leg, no shot offered again
36.3 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, on middle and off, forward in defence
36.4 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, outside the leg, spinning in, no shot offered, hits the pad
36.5 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, outside the leg, spinning in, no shot offered, hits the pad,
36.6 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, on the leg, Tendulkar has had enough of this, sweeps, straight on to Ramprakash knee, oh that hurts!

Six maiden overs in a row now
Giles to continue and for a change it is not the little master on strike
38.1 Giles to Dravid, no run, on the leg, played to mid-wicket Forward short leg, silly point and a short cover, they  have their strategy in place
38.2 Giles to Dravid, no run, forward in defence to a tossed up ball
38.3 Giles to Dravid, no run, allows the ball to hit the pad
38.4 Giles to Dravid, no run, defended
38.5 Giles to Dravid, no run, on leg and middle, shuffles across, played to forward short leg
38.6 Giles to Dravid, no run, defended

Ashley Giles it is from the BEML end, left-arm over the wicket, forward short leg, silly point, short fine leg
44.1 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, flat and quick, on off and middle, played towards point
44.2 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, tossed up, on leg and middle, played back to the bowler
44.3 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, flighted delivery, on middle and leg, bat and pad close together in defence
44.4 Giles to Tendulkar, FOUR, slightly short, quickly goes back and pulls it behind square for four!
44.5 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, just outside the leg, Tendulkar offers the pad in defence
44.6 Giles to Tendulkar, no run, pitched outside the leg stump, spinning in, allows the ball to hit him on the pads


I can put many more overs of commentary here. As you can see, most balls were hitting the pad. Of course, if the ball was VERY wide, umpire would have called it wide anyways. So, the intention was not to bowl so wide from the batsman that he could not touch the ball. The intention was to bowl in a way that make it difficult for the batsman to score. And ICC finds this intention worth making the bowling illegal??

Here is the original Law of Wide ball: (see the complete list here)
Law 25 (Wide ball)

1. Judging a Wide
(a) If the bowler bowls a ball, not being a No ball, the umpire shall adjudge it a Wide if, according to the definition in (b) below, in his opinion the ball passes wide of the striker where he is standing and would also have passed wide of him standing in a normal guard position.

(b) The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

This was the original Law governing the wide ball. The change made to it was:
For bowlers attempting to utilise the rough outside a batsman’s leg stump, not necessarily as a negative tactic, the strict limited over wide interpretation shall be applied. For bowlers whom umpires consider to be bowling down the leg side as a negative tactic, the strict limited over wide interpretation shall be applied.

That is what my objection is on. As you derived, the line on which Giles was bowling was very difficult to play with bat. But it was not impossible!!. He was not really bowling proper wide balls too!!. He was bowling in such a way that batsmen were forced to use their pads instead of bats, if they wanted to survive. Batsman could play such balls with bat too, even without moving; but that would increase chances of getting out. If they used their feet, they could get 4 on such balls.

So, per the original law, Giles was not bowling wide balls. However, the law is now changed to make such bowling illegal.

In this forum we can discuss that decisions taken by ICC. After all, guys in ICC are not gods that every decision they make will be perfect and logical. My point is that this new change is a BAD decision. There is no need to outlaw the kind of bowling Giles was bowling to Indians. The onus should be on the batsmen to improve their skill and score against any kind of bowling.

A bouncer can injure a batsman. In Law 42, it is considered "Dangerous and unfair" bowling. Why does ICC allow 2 bouncers per over when they can be lethal and not allow leg-side bowling, which is harmless? That is a question we can ask. A Yorker is a very difficult ball to play. So why not put restrictions on the number of Yorkers that can be bowled per over?

I know that in your posts, you are trying to find a reason for an existing law. But I am saying that the change in the law, that we are discussing here, is a BAD change and is made only to tilt the game in favor of the batsmen. There is no reason for ICC to rule those deliveries illegal which are harmless yet are difficult to play. If they are ruling them illegal then they should apply the same logic to other kind of difficult deliveries too.

[toney]

ruchir, agreed that most of Giles' deliveries were hitting SRT's pads or very nearly doing so. But the defn of wides also contains one important part - normal cricketing shots. That is, a batsman should be able to play a normal cricketing shot to a delivery and it should be within reasonable reach of him to play this shot. Which shot could SRT play to that delivery pitching well outside the legstump? I think this is what ICC wanted to address. Obviously, they cannot give these as wides because some of them may have hit the stumps. But the intent is clear. The aim of the bowler there is clearly to restrict the batsman from playing any kind of shot, defensive shots included. IMO, this was a necessary rule and does not make it a batsman's game.
The restriction of bouncers and intimidatory bowling: I absolutely agree. No rule should be made for maintaining the spirit of the game. I can only pooh-pooh such rules. Rememebr, a bouncer is not something that sails a foot above the batsman's head. It is one which is directed between shoulder and top of head. So, a batsman can play a cricketing shot to that kind of delivery.

kic,
I agree with your view that a delivery should either be called a wide or let go as normal. The warning part is unnecessary and it also depends on how umpires see it, meaning that different umpires could adopt different levels of strictness in enforcing such a rule. In fact, a guy like Bucknor might just exercise this part of the rules only agianst a few teams . But what will umpires do if bowlers resort to Giles like tactics? They cannot be technically "wided".

worma, believe me, Kumble bowled the exact negative line when SA played India in 1996 (Eden Gardens), I think. Cronje was the captain, Kirsten got a brace in the test, Hudson got a 100, Cullinan got a 100 after he was given not out inspite of an edge caught of his foot. Cronje and company were going for quick runs when our captain, SRT asked AK to bowl this line. I remember a friend of mine fuming at this abhorrent tactic. I agree. AK was repeatedly bowling a foot and more outside the legstump and hardly turning the ball in. He was wided a couple of times too. WHat was funny was Cronje getting a leading edge to one such delivering and AK accepting the catch. BTW, this was the same match where Klusener made his debut and Azhar hit 5 successive fours of him. AK got a wonderful 89 too and had it not been for Azhar's over-enthusiasm, AK would have cruised to a century.

[worma]

ruchir: yes we are trying to justify the reasoning behind the ICC rule, no doubts. Yes they makes mistakes, but IMO they got this one right. As you also acknowledged, you are not sure why they allowed two bouncers? Well, to me it seems that they deem those also in the range of negative play, hence restricted it to two (since it can also be used in a attacking manner, unlike leg side bowling).

From your line of reasoning, as toney points out, even wide ball should not be deemed negative? Can't a batsman play at it, if he wants to? The leg side theory is same....that trajectory is not possible to play (that logic behind this is also the *root* of the reason why pitching outside the leg is not considered a worth LBW shout) under normal circumstances. Sure sehwag jumping out can play it....so can he do if he premeditates on wide balls and jump outside off (way way outside off) and play them

The balls may mostly be hitting the pad in this case (btw, we dont even know whether Giles was a valid case of negative play, since the rule was not in use then..so there's not definitive way of knowing...and this also I repeat) as they mostly do in such negative bowling. That is because the batsman usually puts the pad outside leg (or even stands with that stance) to block the ball....that does not mean that if the pad was not used, the ball would have hit the stump.

The negative bowling law is to be applied (as I understood from commentators discussing it, not written there in ICC rules clearly) if the bowler is not turning the ball enough to hit the stumps, had the ball been left alone. So....essentially...ball hitting the pad does not prove that bowling was not negative, as per rules. That also does not prove that it was *normally* playable.

And toney, as you said, maybe Kumble has used it. I'm sure many others have used it too. And I agreed that in case of Sachin it was made a big issue because it was Sachin. I also think that, since it was within the rules then, it was ok for Hussain to use it (it is not ok for him to compare it with Kumble's bowling in Mohali in this series...this wasnt negative). And I even think that Hussain is right in claiming that he was *successful* with that tactic!

[ruchir]

toney/worma: I guess we pretty much have our opinions solid here.

First of all, does ICC defines what a Normal Cricket Stroke is? If so, what is the official definition?? I think it is upto us fans to use our own interpretations to decide what it is, since there is no official definition.

To me a Wide ball is a Wide ball, and it is negative bowling because bowler is trying not to let the batsman touch the ball. A ball that pitches wide on leg side and continues on its path is a wide ball because it is bowled with an intention of not leting the batsman touch it.

The tolerance of Wide in ODI and Test is different. It is so on either side of the wicket too. On the OFF side,  the tolerance is more as batsman can stretch out. On leg side the tolerance is less as there is less room and time to play. In ODIs, there are markers on both sides for wide balls.

Now, the kind of ball that Giles was bowling, could easily be played but any batsman, using his bat. All the batsman had to do was to use BAT instead of pad. I mean, tell me this. A batsman can stand straight or strech and kick a ball with his legs and you are saying that he can not play the same ball with his bat?? How come? How is it possible to be able to kick a ball with pads but not play it with bat? All you have to do is put bat in front of pad. But most batsmen won't do that because there is a great chance of them being OUT, caught bat-pad. That's why they use pad and that's why there is this illusion that balls pitched outside leg, turning in are negative balls.

What is a *normal cricket shot*? Who defines that trying to play a leg side delivery with bat is not a normal cricket shot? You can take risk and play half-pull or sweep shots to such deliveries. You can play defensive shots to such deliveries. Are they not *normal cricket shots*? That language used in the original law, if twisted, can be used to fit our own point of views.

You say: The negative bowling law is to be applied (as I understood from commentators discussing it, not written there in ICC rules clearly) if the bowler is not turning the ball enough to hit the stumps, had the ball been left alone. So....essentially...ball hitting the pad does not prove that bowling was not negative, as per rules. That also does not prove that it was *normally* playable.

So, what does the law says, really? What would be the unambiguous interpretation? That any ball, that is pitched outside leg and is not hitting the stumps, should be called a Wide? In that case, Warne consistently pitches outside leg and turn is hugely. On most occasions, it is still missing the stumps, somtimes on the off side, sometimes on the leg side. Should all those balls be called wide? I mean, just like a ball not turning much is accused of being unplayable and negative; a ball turning too much can also be called unplayable and negative. Both are pitching outside leg....

Moreover, it is for the batsman to judge whether the ball pitching outside leg is turning enough to hit stumps or not. Why do most batsmen use their pads if they are convinced that the ball is not going to hit the stumps? Why don't they let ball after ball go past the stump to prove that bowler is REALLY bowling negative and help the umpire in making an unambiguous decision of calling it a wide? Why do they first pad the ball and then expect it to be called wide due to it being negative? If the batsman is intinctvely putting his pad in front, to save his wicket, then how can umpire give that ball as a wide?

The logic of not giving LBW on balls pitching outside leg is NOT that they are unplayable. Consider a ball that pitches inches outside leg stump and hits the pad. It is a ball that can be flicked for 4, normally, but batsman misses the ball. The batsman is safe, but not because it was an unplayable ball, but because the rule says so. The reason is that it is difficult for the umpire to judge whether the ball would hit the stump if the ball pitches on leg side. It is comparitively easy to make a similar judgement if it pitches outside Off. Again, this is my opinion. Nothing is written about it is Official Laws of Cricket.

The whole interpretation of the law depends on how we interpret what is a *normal cricket shot*. Depends on our interpretation of what we consider a *normally playable* ball to be.

I think it is here, that we will continue to differ. 

[toney]

Ruchir,

Now, the kind of ball that Giles was bowling, could easily be played but any batsman, using his bat. All the batsman had to do was to use BAT instead of pad. I mean, tell me this. A batsman can stand straight or strech and kick a ball with his legs and you are saying that he can not play the same ball with his bat?? How come? How is it possible to be able to kick a ball with pads but not play it with bat? All you have to do is put bat in front of pad. But most batsmen won't do that because there is a great chance of them being OUT, caught bat-pad. That's why they use pad and that's why there is this illusion that balls pitched outside leg, turning in are negative balls.

I dont know what shot you could play to a ball pitched a foot outside the legstump. Lets assume that the batsman has taken a leg stump guard. The flick that you mentioned later in the post is not a possible shot. All the batsman can hope to do is get a touch, more like a leg glace. Just because a batsman is able to stretch his front foot out towards a ball a foot or more outside the legstump doesnt mean he can, just as easily play a proper shot to the same ball.
Remember, a batsman's stance is side on, not front on. So, there is definitely limited reach on the leg side.

What is a *normal cricket shot*?

I agree that this should be defined. I dont know if it is. But I assume that, since this is mentioned in the defn of a wide, it may be defined.

The logic of not giving LBW on balls pitching outside leg is NOT that they are unplayable. Consider a ball that pitches inches outside leg stump and hits the pad. It is a ball that can be flicked for 4, normally, but batsman misses the ball. The batsman is safe, but not because it was an unplayable ball, but because the rule says so. The reason is that it is difficult for the umpire to judge whether the ball would hit the stump if the ball pitches on leg side. It is comparitively easy to make a similar judgement if it pitches outside Off. Again, this is my opinion. Nothing is written about it is Official Laws of Cricket.

You are mistaken here. I am pretty sure. The reasoning for the law of no lbw to a delivery pitching outside the leg stump is because such a delivery can prevent a batsman from playing a conventional/normal cricketing shot using a side on stance. A bowler like Warne can pitch the ball really full (say yorker length), outside the leg stump. How would a batsman play this ball with the bat? The ball will still turn in and hit the stumps, if Warne gets enough help. And I dont think this is a matter of opinion. You tell us what shot the batsman can play.

[ruchir]

I dont know what shot you could play to a ball pitched a foot outside the legstump. Lets assume that the batsman has taken a leg stump guard. The flick that you mentioned later in the post is not a possible shot. All the batsman can hope to do is get a touch, more like a leg glace. Just because a batsman is able to stretch his front foot out towards a ball a foot or more outside the legstump doesnt mean he can, just as easily play a proper shot to the same ball.
Remember, a batsman's stance is side on, not front on. So, there is definitely limited reach on the leg side.

A ball is considered wide if at the time of passing stumps it is still a good way off from the stump (enough to be called wide). That's why they have white markers on both sides of the stumps. This is an FYI.

A ball lands a foot outside leg. If it does not spin, it will automatically be called a wide. If the ball spins and the batsman instinctively PADS the ball, it show that he can play the ball too. A batsman does not always stretches to pad. Sometimes he just stands there and allows the ball to come and hit his pads or kicks it without stretching.

Another thing, when you play forward defense stroke, you strech forward, come to the pitch of the ball and then tap it down. Isn't that a *normal cricekting stroke*?? And it involves stretching too. When you played straight drive, you stretch your foot as close to the ball as possible and hit it. It is a *normal stroke* too. So, just because a shot involves stretching does not mean it is not a *normal stroke*.

So, just because a batsman has to stretch some way on leg side to play a stroke does not make it an *abnormal stroke*. This does not mean that just because a batsman can stretch a lot, all balls on leg side are legal. No. My opinon is that if a ball, in Tests, passes the stump on leg side within a predetermined distance, it should not be called a wide. It does not matter if a bowler is continuously bowling there and batsmen are not able to score. If it is within the permissible distance from stump, it should be legal. The permissible distance can be determined by expert brains.

A ball very full outside leg but within permissible distance should not be called wide; playable or not. Same thing on Off side is considered legal. You have a choice of shots like Flicks, Sweep, Half-pull, Glance to all other leg side balls.

Again, this is my opinion. You can disagree.

I agree that this should be defined. I dont know if it is. But I assume that, since this is mentioned in the defn of a wide, it may be defined.

No, my friend. I read the Laws of Cricket. There is no place where it is defined as to what is considered as a *normal shot*.

You are mistaken here. I am pretty sure. The reasoning for the law of no lbw to a delivery pitching outside the leg stump is because such a delivery can prevent a batsman from playing a conventional/normal cricketing shot using a side on stance. A bowler like Warne can pitch the ball really full (say yorker length), outside the leg stump. How would a batsman play this ball with the bat? The ball will still turn in and hit the stumps, if Warne gets enough help. And I dont think this is a matter of opinion. You tell us what shot the batsman can play.

I may be wrong but I remember expert commentrator discussing during various matches that since a ball coming from leg side is coming from outside of vision area, the advantage is given to the batsmen.

Again, as I said before, if a ball is pitched very full on leg there is no stroke for that. But if that ball is within the permissible distance from the stumps, it should not be called wide; just like it is not on Off side. For all other leg side balls I have given a list of shots batsman can choose from.

If you think that playing shots on leg side deliveries is difficult, why not outlaw all of them?


My solution to solving this leg-side wide ball puzzle (if you can call it that) is that even for Test matches ICC should clearly define what distance from stumps, on Off and Leg side, is permissble for the bowler to bowl within. It is done in ODIs but not in Tests, and that is what is leading to this difference of opinion between us (I guess). Once this permissible distance is defined, it should not matter whether the ball crossing stumps (or batsman, this can be defined too) within that distance is playable or not. As long as it is in the permissible distance it is legal. If it is indise the distance and is difficult to play, it is upto the batsman to come up with a solution. Currently, there are many deliveries that are difficult to play but are still legal.

[gouravk]

Excellent post Ruchir, applause