Over the Stump and Back Again

Cricket penalty

In cricket, a no-brawl is a type of illegal delivery to a batter (the other type being a wide). It is too a type of extra, beingness the run awarded to the batting team as a event of the illegal delivery. For about cricket games, especially amateur the definition of all forms of no-ball is from the MCC Laws of Cricket. ^[one]

The delivery of a no-ball results in one run – 2 nether some regulations – to exist added to the batting squad's overall score, and an additional ball must be bowled. In addition, the number of ways in which the batter tin exist given out is reduced to three. In shorter contest cricket, a batter receives a free hit on the ball subsequently any kind of no-brawl (come across beneath); this means the concoction tin freely hit that one ball with no danger of being out in most ways.

No-assurance due to overstepping the pucker are mutual, especially in short grade cricket, and fast bowlers tend to basin them more often than spin bowlers.

It is also a no-ball when the bowler's dorsum human foot lands touching or wide of the return pucker.

A commitment may exist judged to be a no-ball past the umpire because information technology is dangerous or unfair, i.e. a fast brusque pitched delivery (a "bouncer") may be so judged, and whatever high total-pitched delivery (a "beamer"), or any deliberate front-human foot error (deliberate overstepping), is inherently dangerous or unfair.

Any beamer is unfair and therefore a no-ball, but the Umpire may judge that a detail beamer is not also dangerous, and does non warrant a warning or suspension ^[2]

For deliberate beamers and deliberate overstepping, the bowler may be suspended from bowling immediately, and the incident reported. For other dangerous and unfair no-balls, or for throwing, repetition volition have additional consequences for the bowler and squad. The bowler may be suspended from bowling in the game, reported, and required to undertake remedial work on his bowling activeness.

Causes [edit]

A no-ball may be chosen for several reasons,^{[1] [3] [4] [5]} most normally because the bowler breaks the showtime dominion below (a front human foot no-ball), and also frequently as a effect of unsafe or unfair bowling.

Note that if a brawl qualifies as both a no-ball and a broad, it is a no-ball.^[1]

The umpire will call a no-ball in any of the post-obit situations:

Illegal activity by the bowler [edit]

Position of feet [edit]

• If the bowler bowls without some part of the front end human foot behind the popping crease (either grounded or in the air) when it lands. If the front human foot of a bowler lands backside the pucker and slides beyond, and so it is non a no-ball. If the foot lands across the crease, it is a no-brawl. It is legal for a spin bowler, for example, to state with his toe spikes grounded wholly in front end of the crease but to take his heel in the air behind that line. The bowler must satisfy the umpire that some function of the foot lands initially behind the line,^[1] and in big games this question is now subject to infinitesimal examination past goggle box replay. Recent do has been to allow the bowler the do good of whatsoever remainder dubiousness in this judgement. Note: the crease refers to the inside edge of the painted line, not the line itself.
• If the bowler bowls without some part of the front human foot landing either grounded or in the air on the aforementioned side of the wicket equally his back human foot lands.
• If the bowler bowls with the back human foot not wholly inside the return crease. Information technology is illegal for any part of the foot to exist exterior the line, whether in the air or grounded.

Method of commitment [edit]

• If the bowler breaks the non-striker's wicket during the act of delivery (unless he is attempting to run out the non-striker).
• If the bowler changes the arm with which he bowls without notifying the umpire.
• If the bowler changes the side of the wicket from which he bowls without notifying the umpire.
• If the bowler bowls underarm unless this mode of delivery is agreed before the match.
• If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker'due south wicket before entering the "delivery stride".
• If the bowler throws, rather than bowls, the ball. (See bowling, bowling activity and especially throwing for an explanation.)
• If the ball bounces more than once, or rolls along the ground, before reaching the popping crease at the striker'southward end.^[1]
• If the ball bounces not wholly within the 10 foot width of a total pitch, or bounces wholly or partly on an artificial surface next to the pitch, or bounces not wholly on the bogus surface in apply.
• If the ball comes to rest in forepart of the line of the striker'south wicket.

Unfair / dangerous bowling [edit]

• If the brawl does not touch the ground in its flying between the wickets and reaches the concoction on the full (this delivery is chosen a beamer) over waist superlative. 'Waist' means the acme of the trousers when the batter is standing upright at the popping crease.^[3]
• If the bowler bowls any fast short pitch ball (bouncer) that, taking into account its trajectory and the skill of the batter, is unsafe.^[three]
• If the bowler bowls a ball that bounces and passes the batter to a higher place head height ^[1]
• If the bowler repeatedly bowls assurance that bounce and pass the batter higher up head acme, the bowling can likewise be judged unfair by the umpire under Law 41, fifty-fifty if not dangerous as above, and incurs the same sanctions.^[3]

In professional cricket, the Laws of Cricket are often modified by a playing regulation that any brawl over head top is a Wide ball, but a second fast ball above shoulder height in an over is a no-ball, e.g. in International T20 Cricket^[vi] and IPLT20.^[7] But in International Ane-Solar day Cricket^[8] and in Examination Cricket,^[9] 2 fast pitched short balls per over may pass over shoulder height before no-ball is called, and again whatever brawl over head superlative is a Wide. Thus competition rules may both tone down the definition of 'dangerous and unfair' (a Wide is a lesser sanction than a no-brawl, and cannot be applied if the concoction hits, or is hit past, the delivery) and put definite limits on repetition, intended non only to protect the batter but also to maintain a fair contest between bat and ball, preventing such bowling being used to limit the batter'due south ability to score. There is soon some departure of opinion between the regime that is axiomatic in the differences between Law and regulation.

Illegal activeness past a fielder [edit]

• If the wicket keeper moves any part of his person in front of the line of the stumps earlier either a) the brawl strikes the batter'south person or bat; or b) the ball passes the line of the stumps.^[4]
• If a fielder (not including bowler) has any part of their body grounded or in the air over the pitch.^[5]
• If a fielder intercepts the brawl before it has striking the striker or his bat or passed his wicket. The brawl also becomes dead immediately.
• If there are more than than two fielders that are on the leg side and behind the batter'due south crease.
• Under sure playing weather condition, farther restrictions utilize to the placement of fielders. For example in 1 Day International cricket, at that place tin be no more than than five fielders a) on the on side; and b) outside the 30-yard circumvolve. (The bowler is not a fielder when counting fielder placement).

Umpire making the phone call of no-ball [edit]

By default, it is the bowler'due south finish umpire who calls and signals no-ball. When sentence of ball acme is required (for beamers and brusque assurance), his colleague (the striker's terminate umpire) will assist him with a indicate.

In the event of a wicket, the umpire can indicate a no-brawl afterwards the fall of that illegal wicket and call up the batter. Either umpire may call a bowler for throwing, although the striker'southward end umpire is naturally amend-placed, so has the primary responsibleness.

The striker's stop umpire calls no-ball for infringement past the wicket-keeper, and for position of the fielders, merely the bowler's end umpire calls no-ball for fielder inroad on the wicket.^[10]

The bowler's end umpire initially signals a pes-fault no-ball past belongings 1 arm out horizontally and calling "no-ball", which may requite the batter some alarm that the brawl is an illegal delivery. Other reasons for a no-ball, e.g. illegal position of fielder, throwing the ball, or height of delivery, are initially judged by the square leg umpire, who indicates his sentence to the bowler's finish umpire.

When the ball is expressionless, the umpire will echo the no-ball hand point for the do good of the scorers, and wait for their acknowledgement.

Effects [edit]

Dismissal [edit]

A concoction may not be given out bowled, leg before wicket, caught, stumped or hitting wicket off a no-ball. A batter may be given out run out, striking the ball twice or obstructing the field. Thus the call of no-ball protects the batter against losing his wicket in ways that are attributed to the bowler, but not in means that are attributed to the concoction'southward running or conduct.

A batter may even exist given out Run out not attempting a run, just as if the ball were legal, except for the case that would exist stumped were it not a no-ball, i.e. it is not out if the batter is non attempting a run and the wicket keeper puts the wicket downwards without the intervention of another fielder. The keeper can still run out the batter if he moves to attempt a run.

Runs [edit]

When a no-ball is bowled, runs are awarded to the batting team. In Test cricket, Ane Day International cricket and T20 International cricket, the award is 1 run; in some domestic competitions, especially i-day cricket competitions, the award is two runs. All such runs are scored equally extras and are added to the batting team'southward total, but are not credited to the batter. For scoring, no-balls are considered to exist the mistake of the bowler (fifty-fifty if the infringement was committed by a fielder), and are recorded against the bowler'south record in their bowling analysis.

In addition, if the batter hits the brawl he may too take runs every bit normal, which are credited to him. If he does not hit information technology, byes or leg byes may be scored. Depending on the reason for the umpire'south telephone call of 'no-ball' (and hence its timing), the speed of the call, the speed of the delivery and the batter'south reactions, the batter may be able to play a more than aggressive shot at the commitment, safe in the knowledge that he cannot be dismissed by most methods.

Additional delivery [edit]

A no-ball does not count equally i of the (usually half-dozen) deliveries in an over, and then an boosted commitment must be bowled.

Complimentary hitting [edit]

If this contest mandates a gratis hit for the type of no-brawl he has adjudged, the umpire will and so signal that the boosted delivery is a gratuitous hit by making circular movements in the air past extending one raised hand.

The free hit may likewise be ruled a no-ball or Broad, in which example the side by side ball is also a costless hit, and and so on. Once the bowler has bowled i legitimate 'gratis hit' ball, one ball is accounted to take been bowled towards the (ordinarily six) legal balls required for i over, which and so continues as normal.

Other effects [edit]

Unsafe and unfair play [edit]

As stated to a higher place, the effects of no-balls may exist cumulative, and may accomplish beyond the completion of the game. Police force 41 deals with dangerous and unfair play, and no-balls, in mutual with most transgressions of Law 41, may cause the umpires to initiate further sanctions. The bowler may be prevented from bowling for the rest of the innings, may face disciplinary action by bodies governing the game, and may be required to change the way he bowls. This is besides the case for a bowler called under Law 21 for throwing. Sanctions now also use for the deliberate bowling of front end human foot no-balls. Police force 41 gives the umpires specific duties to ensure the condom conduct of the game in the case of unfair bowling.

Throughout cricket history, there take been occasions when the fielding team has needed to encourage the batting team to score freely and quickly, normally when enticing them not to settle for a draw, but sometimes to satisfy some competition rule. In some such cases, particularly when the end of the match requires the completion of a specified number of overs, the fielding captain has encouraged his bowler to basin deliberate no-balls by overstepping. Sometimes it has proved to be an ill-judged idea that risked both bringing the game into disrepute and losing the match, due east.g.^[11] From October 2017, this specific resort is no longer bachelor, as a side-effect of the fact that deliberate overstepping volition immediately be ruled "dangerous and unfair" by the umpire, but no-balls that breach other parts of the Police force might still be concocted deliberately without existence ruled unfair.

Umpire Decision Review Organisation [edit]

Special complications arise in the professional game when technology is used to aid the umpires, and overturn a decision made on the field. Video review by the third umpire may reveal that a no-brawl should have been called (especially for overstepping or a beamer) when the batter has been given out. If then, the ball is deemed to be dead from the moment of the 'dismissal upshot,' and whatever runs scored after that point (runs, byes or leg byes) will non count, only the batting team do get the no-ball penalization.^[9] Information technology is now customary for a concoction given out to stand up at the border of the playing area and look to run across if the video may find a no-ball, in which case he is reinstated. If the batsmen have crossed in running, the batsmen do not return to their original ends. Video review may besides reveal that a no-ball should NOT take been called, in which case the ball becomes dead at the time of the on-field call.

Further consequences tin can occur in cases when the on-field decision has been overturned. For example, the concoction is given out LBW, merely the brawl runs abroad off his pads, for what would be iv leg-byes that win the game. The bowling side is thought to take won. The review adjudges the bowler to accept overstepped. The batting team are awarded only a ane run penalty for the no-ball, and an actress ball or gratuitous hit, but fail to score off it, and the bowling side notwithstanding win, even though the batting side would have won if the umpire'due south decision had matched the video testify discovered, although perhaps the fielding side might have tried harder to save the 4 leg byes had they known the match depended on it.^{[ original inquiry? ]} For such complications and other reasons, including business organization to control the amount of fourth dimension used in review, the ICC is experimenting with 'no-ball instant notification,' under which the umpire is immediately given the additional data to phone call no-ball while the ball is still live.^[12]

If a 'Player Review' requested by the fielding side upholds a decision of 'Not Out', but a no-ball is discovered by the review, that review does not count equally unsuccessful, and does not expend the reviews allocated to them.

Human relationship with Penalty Runs [edit]

Unlike some breaches of Police force 41, a no-ball only attracts the no-brawl penalisation (e.g. i run), in that location are no provisions in the Law or in common regulations for v penalisation runs to be awarded to the batting squad, and there are no incidents when 5 penalty runs are awarded that would require a no-ball to exist called, although scenarios exist in which five penalization runs might exist awarded when the ball is in play and would count in the over, were information technology not a no-brawl for the reasons given here, for example: repeated damage to the wicket by the fielding squad during a no-ball, or the brawl hits a helmet on the ground during a no-ball.

History [edit]

The 1774 Laws of Cricket state "The bowler must evangelize the Ball with i human foot backside the Crease fifty-fifty with the wicket ... If he delivers the Ball with his hinder pes over the Bowling crease the Umpire shall call no Ball (sic), though she be struck or the player is Bowled out; which he shall do without beingness asked, and no Person shall have any correct to inquire him."

In the 1788 MCC lawmaking this became "The Bowler Shall deliver the Ball with one human foot behind the Bowling Crease, and within the Return Crease...if the Bowler's foot is not behind the Bowling Pucker, and within the return Crease, when he delivers the Ball, [the Umpires] must, unasked, telephone call No Brawl."

The early Laws exercise not define any consequence of No Brawl. Information technology is implied that, when called No Brawl, the brawl was not in play,^[thirteen] probably regarded equally 'expressionless,' and the batting squad did not benefit. No 'notch' was scored.

At some betoken before 1811, the batter was immune to score runs from the no-ball, and was protected from being out, except by being run out. By this change the no-brawl became a passage of play, and was probably intended to restrain the development of roundarm bowling. Further complicated modifications were made before 1817, and so simplifications betwixt 1825 and 1828 that expressly forbade roundarm.^[14]

In 1829 the one run penalization was introduced for a no-ball when no run was scored otherwise.

The 1835 code legitimised roundarm bowling, and prevented overarm bowling by penalty of no-ball (see also 1835 English language cricket flavour). The previous Laws did non disbar either, but had been interpreted variously by umpires reflecting custom and practice, at some cost to the careers of the bowling innovators. Further changes were fabricated in 1845, and in 1864 bowlers were finally free to bowl overarm, enshrined in the pithy phrase "The ball must exist bowled."

In 1835 The Umpire was required to call no-brawl immediately the brawl was delivered.

Nether the 1884 lawmaking, a no-ball was called under Law 10 "The ball must be bowled; if thrown or jerked the umpire shall call No ball." and Police force 11 "The bowler shall deliver the ball with i human foot on the footing backside the bowling crease, and within the return crease, otherwise the umpire shall call No ball." Police force 16 provided that "if no run be made ane run shall be added to that score." Other detail was codified by Laws 13 (not to count in over), 16 (scoring runs and protection from being out), 17 (scoring of extras), 35 (failed endeavour at run out earlier delivery), 48A (umpire call of no-brawl) and 48B (umpire to make telephone call immediately) ^[xv]

1900s [edit]

A 1912 revision ruled that the batter could non be stumped from a no-ball. This acquired difficulty until 1947 when he stardom betwixt 'run out' and 'stumped' was antiseptic.

The 1947 code removed the requirement for the bowler's back foot to be on the footing behind the bowling crease at the moment of delivery. The change codified general umpiring exercise, as the sentence had proved difficult to brand.

Until 1963, a no-ball was called when the bowler's back foot landed over the bowling pucker (which is why the bowling crease was so chosen), exactly equally in 1774. Merely it was felt that the tallest fast bowlers, able to bowl legally with their front foot well over the popping crease, were gaining as well dandy an reward. Bowlers also became skilled in dragging their back foot. The change in the Law led to an increase in no-balls: in the 1962–63 series between Commonwealth of australia and England there were v no-balls; in the series betwixt the two teams three years later there were 25.

Until 1957, there was no limitation on fielders behind square on the leg side. The change is oftentimes attributed to the desire to thwart bodyline, only the Bodyline Controversy was in 1933. The conservative instincts of cricket, and the intervention of Earth War Ii, may have been factors in the delay, but as the bodyline article explains, at that place was more than than 1 reason for the change. Initially a no-ball under "Experimental Note iii to Law 44" was confined to first class cricket (including all international cricket) and became part of the Laws of Cricket every bit Constabulary 41.2 in 1980.

In 1980, the primary codification of no-ball Law became Law 24, with no-assurance also called under Constabulary forty (the wicket-keeper), Police force 41 (the fielder) and Police 42 (Unfair Play). The new code made encroachment onto the wicket past the wicket-keeper and fielders a no-ball. In sometime motion picture footage, for instance of Underwood's Examination in 1968, close fielders can be seen in positions that would nowadays cause a no-brawl to be called [2]. Previously the fielder could stand anywhere every bit long as he was still, did not distract the batter, nor interfere with his correct to play the ball. Umpires would conventionally intervene if a player's shadow brutal on the pitch, which is all the same widely treated every bit a distraction, just not inherently a no-ball.

Prior to 1980, if the wicket keeper took the brawl in front of the stumps the umpire would turn down whatever appeal for a stumping, but would not have called no-ball.

The 1947 code explicitly provided, in Constabulary 26 Annotation 4, that information technology was not a no-ball if the bowler broke the bowler'due south end wicket. No such explicit words appear in the 1980 lawmaking.

From 30 April 2013 (ICC playing regulation) and 1 Oct 2013 (Constabulary) a no-ball results when the bowler breaks the non-striker's wicket during the human activity of delivery. For a short period prior to this, umpires had adopted the convention of calling 'expressionless brawl' when this happened. See Steven Finn for origins of the change.^{[xvi] [17]}

The year 2000 Code was a major change, and added the no-ball sanction for waist-high fast beamers, balls billowy over head superlative, and balls billowy more twice or coming to remainder in forepart of the striker. It also removed the sentence of intent to intimidate on fast short pitched bowling.

Since the mid 1980s, no-balls accept been accounted against the bowler in computing his statistics ^[18]

Prior to 2000, ane no-ball run penalisation was but scored if no runs were scored otherwise.

From October 2007 all human foot-error no-balls bowled in Ane Twenty-four hours Internationals resulted in a costless hitting.^[19]

From 5 July 2015 all no-balls bowled in either One 24-hour interval Internationals or Twenty20 Internationals resulted in a free hit.^[20]

From 2013 some competitions outlawed the double-bounce ball in society to thwart negative developments in bowling ^{[21] [22] [23]}

The change to a maximum of 1 unmarried bounce became Law in all forms of cricket in the October 2022 Police force code, which also outlawed a ball that bounced off the pitch fifty-fifty if it so became playable.

Between 2000 and 2017, a beamer was judged a no-ball nether the Laws of Cricket if it passed the concoction above waist elevation, when delivered by a fast bowler, or above the shoulder when delivered by a tiresome bowler. The professional regulations did not tolerate the slow shoulder-loftier beamer. The Oct 2022 changes set the limit for beamers in all cricket at waist meridian, regardless of delivery speed.

The Oct 2022 Law lawmaking changes too removed the need for repetition before calling a no-ball for dangerous curt-pitched bowling (bouncers), introduced the judgement of repetition in head-loftier bouncers every bit unfair, and treated a deliberate front foot no-ball every bit 'dangerous or unfair,' with immediate sanctions every bit for a deliberate beamer. The new code reduced the warning for throwing to ane kickoff and final, instead of the two warnings that had existed since 2000. An explicit penalization for underarm bowling was stipulated, although such bowling was accounted a no-brawl in 2000. Interception of the ball by a fielder earlier reaching the batter became an explicit no-ball.

Laws were also renumbered so that no-balls are now chosen under Police force 21 (was 24), with no-balls besides called nether Law 27 - the Wicket-Keeper (was 40), Police 28 - the Fielder (was 41) and Police force 41 - Unfair Play (was 42).

Prior to 2022 whatever byes and leg byes taken from a no-ball were scored every bit no-brawl extras, but are now scored as adieu and leg bye extras.

From April 2022 whatsoever beamer is unfair and therefore a no-brawl, but the Umpire can now judge that a particular beamer is not also dangerous, and does not warrant a warning or break. The 2022 code defines what 'waist' means for the first time.^[ii]

On 22 September 2022 the MCC decided to use the word 'concoction' in place of 'batsman' throughout the Laws of Cricket.^[24]

Scoring notation [edit]

The conventional notation for a no-ball is a circumvolve, and it can be abbreviated "nb". If the batter hits the ball and takes runs, a boundary iv or boundary half dozen off the delivery, then the runs are marked inside the circumvolve. In do it is easier to write down the number then encircle it.

If the batsmen run byes following a no-ball, or the ball runs to the purlieus for 4 byes, each good day taken is marked with a dot inside the circle. Again it is easier to encircle the dots.

Capitalisation convention and grammar [edit]

Both the MCC Laws of Cricket ^[25] and the ICC Playing Weather condition ^[26] utilise the capitalisation convention "No ball" throughout, though most major news sources refer to them as "no-ball".

The grammar is significant in the history and development of the game as outlined above: initially a no Brawl is a non-event: when the Umpire calls "no Ball" they mean nothing has happened - at that place has been no Brawl. It would have been inexplicable to hyphenate the phrase, or capitalise the "No" rather than the "Ball," since there is initially no issue chosen "No ball," but the absence of whatsoever Ball.

"No ball" evolved every bit a concept and sanction in the Police force to prevent confusing tardily Georgian innovation. A "No ball" is no longer merely the absence of a "Ball," it is the occurrence of an unacceptable do for which legislation and upshot is provided. Somewhen a "No brawl" became an active passage of play in which runs are scored and batsmen can fifty-fifty be out.^[14]

The modern usage, "no-ball" as a chemical compound phrase arises in part because finally a no-ball is a commonplace consequence in its own right, one that leads occasionally fifty-fifty to international diplomatic flurries or even imprisonment. It is used both as a substantive-phrase and a verb-phrase, "The Umpire will no-ball yous ..."

Run into as well [edit]

• Islamic republic of pakistan cricket spot-fixing scandal, in which no-assurance were deliberately bowled as office of a betting scam.

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c d eastward f} "Law 21 – No brawl". MCC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
2. ^ ^{a b} "2017 code second Edition" (PDF). MCC. Retrieved 8 January 2019.
3. ^ ^{a b c d} "Constabulary 41 – Unfair play". MCC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
4. ^ ^{a b} "Law 27 – The wicket-keeper". MCC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
5. ^ ^{a b} "Law 28 – The fielder". MCC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
6. ^ "ICC Men's Twenty20 International Playing Conditions" (PDF). International Cricket Quango.
7. ^ "IPLT20 match playing atmospheric condition 42 Law 42 Fair and Unfair Play". BCCI. Archived from the original on 25 April 2013.
8. ^ "ICC Men'south One Day International Playing Atmospheric condition" (PDF). International Cricket Quango.
9. ^ ^{a b} "ICC Men's Test Match Playing Conditions" (PDF). International Cricket Council.
10. ^ Marylebone Cricket Club, Tom Smith'due south Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, Marylebone Cricket Gild, 2019
11. ^ .[ane]
12. ^ "Clan of Cricket Officials, p.33 Clan of Cricket Officials Magazine, ACO, Issue 27 Winter 2016"
13. ^ Trevor Bailey, A History of Cricket, George Allen & Unwin, 1979
14. ^ ^{a b} R.Southward. Rait Kerr, The Laws of Cricket Their History and Growth, Longmans, 1950
15. ^ "Laws of Cricket 1884 Code". ESPN Cricinfo . Retrieved 28 December 2017.
16. ^ "MCC Introduces New No Ball Law". Marylebone Cricket Club.
17. ^ "ICC adopts no-brawl Police force after Finn problem". CricInfo.
18. ^ "Influence of wides and no balls on Examination bowler averages". ESPN Cricinfo . Retrieved v December 2017.
19. ^ "Clarification to costless-hit regulation in ODIs". ESPN Cricinfo . Retrieved 17 May 2016.
20. ^ "Bowlers do good from ODI dominion changes". ESPN Cricinfo . Retrieved 27 June 2015.
21. ^ ""IPLT20 Lucifer Playing Weather condition Law 24"". IPL, BCCI. Archived from the original on 22 May 2016. Retrieved 17 May 2016.
22. ^ "2013 Regulations and Playing Weather – first-class County The LV= County Championship, Other first-class Matches and Non-starting time-form MCC University Matches against Counties" (PDF). England and Wales Cricket Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 March 2014. Retrieved eight May 2013.
23. ^ "ECB outlaws Warwickshire's thought to start bowling double-billowy deliveries". Telegraph Media Group Limited.
24. ^ "MCC to utilize the term "batters" throughout the Laws of Cricket". MCC. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
25. ^ "MCC Law". Marylebone Cricket Social club.
26. ^ "ICC Men'south Test Match Playing Weather" (PDF). icc-cricket.com . Retrieved vii November 2017.

brysoncanconse.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-ball