Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- From: Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:59:56 +1000
On 30 Mar 2007 21:47:37 -0700, "Bob Dubery" <megapode@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:25 am, "dodo" <dodo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:06 pm, "arahim" <arahim_ara...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
After the underarm ball fiasco, they introduced some bad rule changes
that made underarm illegal, and required that the ball only pitch once
to be legal.
I think those are fairly recent inclusions in the laws, though ODIs
have had a playing condition nixing underarm bowling for a lot longer.
To me a ban on underarm bowling is going too far. The problem with
that infamous delivery was not that it was underarm but that it was
rolled. IMO underam lobs should still be allowed, but there should be
wording in the laws to require that the ball bounce no more than once
or that prevent it being rolled.
How many times does a rolled ball bounce anyway? Maybe this is why
there's a ban on underarm deliveries. Somebody could do a Chappell and
then argue that the ball had indeed bounced once - just not very high.
Word it "Must not bounce twice or more and must not have rolled along
the ground"
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunspammelaws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Slowest ball in world cricket?
- From: Luke Curtis
- Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- From: arahim
- Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- From: Dipak Basu
- Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- From: arahim
- Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- From: dodo
- Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- From: Bob Dubery
- Slowest ball in world cricket?
- Prev by Date: Re: Michael Holding - LOL!
- Next by Date: Re: Chappell's 'processes' contradicted Indian approach : Javagal Srinath
- Previous by thread: Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- Next by thread: Re: Slowest ball in world cricket?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|