SA Footy

when bowlers bowl & the ball bounces over leg stump or just missing leg stump (say 5-10 mm) should they be called wides ? i don't think they should, it is unfair to the bowler imho

Weren't bowlers allowed to do that when one dayers first started and they changed the laws to make a Moore exciting game. Instead of the batsmen not being able to play a shot and letting in go through to the keeper. I say keep it as it is, no one wants to see a boring game with hardly any runs (150-200) being scored like it was years ago

The rule it right as it is. You acn't allow the bowlers to get away with cheap dot balls by putting the ball down leg, and while it might appear easier to hit a bouncer on that line, how do you legislate that sort of thing? IMHO it would be too hard to say a ball of a certain height was allowed to be down leg, and you would then have to think about the speed of the bowler. Before long we'll need messrs Duckworth and Lewis to work out a formula to be followed every time a ball is pushed down leg!

bayman wrote:when bowlers bowl & the ball bounces over leg stump or just missing leg stump (say 5-10 mm) should they be called wides ? i don't think they should, it is unfair to the bowler imho

bay man this has been a batsmans game 4 a long time imo apprently crowds want to see big scores but i think games like tonights and last fridays game in perth were much more enjoyable than the slaperthons that you see where normally the side batting 1st makes a big total then the side batting 2nd is out cheaply chasing such a big score ...power to the bowler i say

Know you get a free hit next ball for a no-ball, does the same apply for a wide???

locky801 wrote:Know you get a free hit next ball for a no-ball, does the same apply for a wide???

No

locky801 wrote:Know you get a free hit next ball for a no-ball, does the same apply for a wide???

it is only a free hit for a front foot no-ball.....

I would prefer to see not all balls down leg side be called wide - however, I can understand why they do it, to make it an easy decision for the umpire.

hearts on fire wrote:

locky801 wrote:Know you get a free hit next ball for a no-ball, does the same apply for a wide???

it is only a free hit for a front foot no-ball.....

What happens on the "Free-Hit" if a bowler bowls a wide, does it remain a free hit for the next ball?

hearts on fire wrote:

locky801 wrote:Know you get a free hit next ball for a no-ball, does the same apply for a wide???

it is only a free hit for a front foot no-ball.....

Both illegal delieveries, should be the same for both, I can see a situation arising where somehow (havent quite worked the formula out yet) that in a tight game last over and bowling a no ball you could use the wide to an advantage, so basically it is front foot only, not a throw, not a 2nd over the shoulder bouncer, interesting concept I guess

Anyone noticed who plays cricket and umpire yourself that youngsers will call a wide when it is anything more than a foot outside leg stump? ....gives me the shits! they watch too much TV!

Constance, yeah it's still a free hit the next ball if a wide is delivered on the free hit ball (make sense??)

Constance_Perm wrote:

hearts on fire wrote:

locky801 wrote:Know you get a free hit next ball for a no-ball, does the same apply for a wide???

it is only a free hit for a front foot no-ball.....

What happens on the "Free-Hit" if a bowler bowls a wide, does it remain a free hit for the next ball?

yes, it remains a free hit until a legal ball has been bowled