SA Footy

And probably a stupid one at that, but Im sure someone can still answer it for me anyway.

Im pretty sure that if the fielding team has 2 fieldsman behind squareleg when a bowl is bowled, that delivery is deemed a no ball.

Why?

Thanking you in advance, Constance Tupidity.

Its 3 fielders. I believe its just to stop a tactic such as 'bodyline' coming back as its obvious what the ploy is should a captain put 4 fielders on the backward square boundary.

Yes, classifed as negative bowling I think or something along them lines.

Pat Malone wrote:Its 3 fielders. I believe its just to stop a tactic such as 'bodyline' coming back as its obvious what the ploy is should a captain put 4 fielders on the backward square boundary.

This.

Pat Malone wrote:Its 3 fielders. I believe its just to stop a tactic such as 'bodyline' coming back as its obvious what the ploy is should a captain put 4 fielders on the backward square boundary.

I wondered if that was the reason, but in this day and age with limitations on short-pitched bowling, I wondered why the rule still existed (if this were the reason).

As far as Im aware there isn't a limit on how many fielders can be placed behind the wicket on the off-side?

Constance_Perm wrote:

Pat Malone wrote:Its 3 fielders. I believe its just to stop a tactic such as 'bodyline' coming back as its obvious what the ploy is should a captain put 4 fielders on the backward square boundary.

I wondered if that was the reason, but in this day and age with limitations on short-pitched bowling, I wondered why the rule still existed (if this were the reason).

As far as Im aware there isn't a limit on how many fielders can be placed behind the wicket on the off-side?

You can still injure a batsman by bowling at the body, it isn't anything to do with at the head, it's intentional dangerous bowling.

Not only behind square constance but I'm pretty sure there is/was a limit on the amount of fielders you can have anywhere on the leg side too.

smithy wrote:Not only behind square constance but I'm pretty sure there is/was a limit on the amount of fielders you can have anywhere on the leg side too.

True!

Behind square no more than 2, as said because of bodyline.

On the leg side, i believe you are not able to have 6 on the leg side. therefore 4 people must be on the off side at all times IIRC

Does the 6-on-the-legside rule apply to all grades of cricket or just one-day internationals?

FlyingHigh wrote:Does the 6-on-the-legside rule apply to all grades of cricket or just one-day internationals?

all

I still don't understand why in this day and age legside behind the wicket is more limited than offside behind the wicket when it comes to the number of fielders that can be placed.

Maybe I've spent too much time away from following cricket??

Constance_Perm wrote:I still don't understand why in this day and age legside behind the wicket is more limited than offside behind the wicket when it comes to the number of fielders that can be placed.

Maybe I've spent too much time away from following cricket??

I guess because probing bowling around the off-stump is in the spirit of the game and bowling bouncers every ball at a batsman's face isn't.

OnSong wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:I still don't understand why in this day and age legside behind the wicket is more limited than offside behind the wicket when it comes to the number of fielders that can be placed.

Maybe I've spent too much time away from following cricket??

I guess because probing bowling around the off-stump is in the spirit of the game and bowling bouncers every ball at a batsman's face isn't.

Who said anything about bowling a bouncer every ball? (which is prohibited anyway)

And when a bouncer is bowled, a batsmen can fend a delivery to any number of slips, or a backward point or a 3rd man but it's not okay if it goes to a leg-slip or fine leg?

I just find it an inconsistent law in modern cricket

I believe the legside part of it is the short ball, angled towards the head/upper body of the batsman, rather than the odd short ball designed to unsettle them.

Media Park wrote:I believe the legside part of it is the short ball, angled towards the head/upper body of the batsman, rather than the odd short ball designed to unsettle them.

Then why aren't bouncers prohibited altogether? lol I know I seem like a dog with a bone and it really doesn't effect my interet in the game at all, I just cant find what seems to be a valid reason

Here's another one for you constance tutter.

Why can't you be given out LBW if it pitches outside leg ?

I've never understood why?
When was this law introduced ?
If it is going on to hit the stumps the rules should be the same for the off stump should it not ?

Deep down *, I reckon the question you raised and the one I just did are somewhat related CP.

smithy wrote:Here's another one for you constance tutter.

Why can't you be given out LBW if it pitches outside leg ?

I've never understood why?
When was this law introduced ?
If it is going on to hit the stumps the rules should be the same for the off stump should it not ?

Deep down *, I reckon the question you raised and the one I just did are somewhat related CP.

Nice one brother

What did Michael Clarke see in Lara Bingle
to ask him to marry her? There are always questions in cricket that have no definite answer.

OnSong wrote:What did Michael Clarke see in Lara Bingle
to ask him to marry her? There are always questions in cricket that have no definite answer.

Im pretty sure I'll get banned if I answer that question mate

OnSong wrote:What did Michael Clarke see in Lara Bingle
to ask him to marry her? There are always questions in cricket that have no definite answer.

Hello, is it me you're looking for?