<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SA Cricket Blog &#187; Laws of cricket</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sacricketblog.com/category/laws-of-cricket/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sacricketblog.com</link>
	<description>South Africa&#039;s premier cricket blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:30:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The no ball</title>
		<link>http://sacricketblog.com/the-no-ball/</link>
		<comments>http://sacricketblog.com/the-no-ball/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:52:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shaun Custers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Laws of cricket]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alaster Cook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dary Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morne Morkel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No Ball]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacricketblog.com/?p=1125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With all this controversy surrounding the wicket of Alastair Cook, falling lbw to Morne Morkel for 21 in Englands first inning in the fourth and final Castle Test match got me thinking, so I dusted off the old Test cricket law book. This is what the law states: Law 24: No Ball 24.3. Fair Delivery [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsacricketblog.com%2Fthe-no-ball%2F" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http_3A_2F_2Fsacricketblog.com_2Fthe-no-ball_2F&amp;referer=');"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsacricketblog.com%2Fthe-no-ball%2F&amp;source=sacricketblog&amp;style=compact&amp;b=2" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p><a href="http://sacricketblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/umpire-signaling-a-no-ball.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-1126" title="cricket laws no ball" src="http://sacricketblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/umpire-signaling-a-no-ball-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a>With all this <strong>controversy surrounding the wicket of Alastair Cook</strong>, falling lbw to Morne Morkel for 21 in Englands first inning in the fourth and final Castle Test match got me thinking, so I dusted off the old Test cricket law book.</p>
<p>This is what the law states:</p>
<p><strong>Law 24: No Ball</strong></p>
<h4>24.3. Fair Delivery &#8211; The Feet</h4>
<p>The Umpire at the bowler&#8217;s wicket shall call and signal &#8220;no ball&#8221; if he is not satisfied that in the delivery stride:-</p>
<p>(a)  the Bowler&#8217;s back foot has landed within  and  not  touching the return crease or its forward extension</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>(b)  some part of the front foot whether grounded or  raised  was behind the popping crease.</p>
<p>When Cook was given out he requested the referral probably based on height, I doubt a batsmen can &#8216;see&#8217; a no ball being bowled. When referred, <strong>third umpire Daryl Harper</strong> adjudged that the on field umpire was correct and the original decision was upheld. The England dressing room was pretty <strong>animated in their disappointment</strong> as there was some controversy with regards to a potential no ball having been bowled.</p>
<p>The law is pretty clear and simple: &#8220;<strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">some part</span></strong> of the front foot <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>whether grounded or  raised</strong></span> was behind the popping crease&#8221;. Having seen the replay I&#8217;d say it was a legal ball, as part of Morkel&#8217;s foot was in the air but behind the crease. Having said that there must have been some doubt in the umpires mind, the decision usually goes in the favor of the batsman when there is doubt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sacricketblog.com/the-no-ball/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

