Talk:No-ball

Untitled
NO BALLS ARE NOT UNCOMMON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.146.17 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

--219.93.174.109 06:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Pl clarify"if the wicket keeper moves on delivery of the ball behind the wicket towrds wicket to collect a slow ball from the bowler behind the wicket ,which beats batman,and stumps is it out or not

I can't find on any of the pages a good discussion of exactly what distinguishes bowling from throwing. It would be nice to mention that more in depth in this article or the main bowling article.


 * I've added such a discussion to bowling (cricket). -dmmaus 01:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"The umpire signals a no ball by holding one arm out horizontally." I was always told that only the right arm signals a no ball, and that just holding the left arm is not an umpire's signal.

Scoring when ball is no ball
when the ball is no ball.... the batsman hits it in the air..... the catch is taken..... they run and completes a single.....

now my doubt.... for a no ball the batsman gets the runs he scored as if it were a normal ball.... so if it was a normal ball when catch is taken he gets no runs......

so if it is a no ball does the same happen....

ie does the batting team get only one run for the no ball in this case and the same batsman takes strike....

or does the batting team get two runs....... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raufismail (talk • contribs) 08:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Doosraful
Can this be any part of the article?

"Doosraful (doo-srah-fool) refers to Mohammad Ashraful's bizarre delivery that got AB de Villiers out on day the second day of Bangladesh vs. South Africa test (February 22, 2008). The delivery is unique due to the fact that the ball bounced twice on the pitch before de Villiers hit it. According to the Laws of Cricket a ball bouncing more than twice must be declared no ball. As the 'Doosraful' delivery bounces only two times, it is a completely legal delivery. This is the only instance in modern day cricket where a ball was bowled with two bounces. - de Villiers's bizarre dismissal, The History of its naming, Video of the 'Doosraful' Delivery"

Think about it. Looks a like a good possibility. Aditya (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If the ball bounces twice or more than twice?
The illegal action quoted as "If the ball bounces twice or more than twice" is plain wrong.

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html The correct rule says: 6. Ball bouncing more than twice or rolling along the ground The umpire at the bowler's end shall call and signal No ball if a ball which he considers to have been delivered, without having previously touched the bat or person of the striker, either (i) bounces more than twice or (ii) rolls along the ground before it reaches the popping crease.

Yes, the ECB have banned it this year because they have deemed it "against the spirit of the game" but the official rules still permit the ball to bounce up to two times before reaches the popping crease. http://www.cricinfo.com/countycricket2010/content/story/462564.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.53.228 (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The ECB have banned a ball bouncing twice for certain competitions (ie First-class, Premier leagues and a few others) through their competitions committee. This is not however a change in the laws of cricket as these are set by the MCC. Please see www.umpires.tv which states this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.96.183 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

if the batsman is out of the crease, it's not a no ball?
The sentence "if the batsman is out of the crease, it's not a no ball" has been removed from the "Illegal action by the bowler" section. This is because the position of the batsman has no effect at all on whether the delivery is legal or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.19.241 (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Check Before You Edit!
I have reversed some incorrect corrections on this page.

PLEASE don't just correct this page based on what you see on the television. See below. If you think this page is wrong, please check the source material before jumping in!

ALL the main source material is at http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws, and anywhere that the ICC international cricket regulations are different, it is on their site. See the references. Qualified umpires amongst other have contributed to, and checked, this page, although it's not impossible that there are still errors.

In the past, one or two anonymous contributors have decided that:

- Some part of the bowler's front foot must be grounded behind the line. No.

- All balls over waist height are No balls. No, not in adult amateur cricket (yet), and any other game using the standard MCC Laws.

Both of these two opinions are probably founded on watching what happens on television.

In the first case what you see is usually a fast bowler, but a slow bowler can bowl a legal delivery without grounding his front heel, they often do, and if you try being umpire and calling one for No ball you'll soon be corrected.

In the second case, what you see on television is professional cricket, often international professional cricket, where chest-high beamers from slow bowlers are not tolerated. Amateurs are more tolerant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atconsul (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

- You cannot be stumped off a No ball in ANY class of cricket unless someone has an unusual competition regulation. By all means cite it here if it is notable.

Not convinced? See https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball/ section 16.

Law 24 s.16 states that there are only four ways you can be out to a No ball: run out, handled the ball, hit the ball twice, obstructing the field.

Altogether there are ten ways to get out, which leaves:

Bowled, Caught, LBW, Stumped, Hit wicket, Timed out.

If you are out timed out, it will be whilst the ball is dead, so this isn't a property of any ball, legal or No ball. This leaves the five ways you cannot be out from a No ball that are cited in the article.

Just to gild the lily I have now also made it explicit that you can be out in four ways. This matches the treatment in the Laws, and perhaps will also discourage the urge to generous but unwarranted contribution.

Atconsul (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Great news (for this page at least) The 2017 changes bring MCC and ICC more into line, which means that you can more often believe what you see on the television! But there are still two major differences between pro and am cricket:

- A ball over head height is still a No ball except in Pro cricket.

- The laws on run out of non-striker are NOT the same - probably (subject to clarification, interpretation and practice) - which has a knock-on effect to this No ball page, so keep paying careful attention!

Atconsul (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The run out of non-striker Laws are now the same: 41.16 is the same in both the MCC Laws and ICC Playing Conditions.Spike &#39;em (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. More great news as the ICC has also changed its Regulations (Sept 2017) so that the two now match. Atconsul (talk)

The Free Hit and its history
Although there is a stub article on the Free Hit, there was already more detail and referencing about it here than there, and I have suggested that we should merge it in here. The Free Hit is now central to most competition cricket except Test Cricket and it is just one component of the no ball.

I have now attempted to add the historic Free Hit context here but I don't seem to be able to access any archives of the primary source material from ICC, IPL etc. Can anyone help with narrative and references to flesh out the historic development of the Free Hit over the last few years? Where and when did it originate? Which competition had it first? Who promoted its adoption? When exactly did the ICC reg change from front-foot no ball to any foot fault no ball? What are the unlegislated conventions in use, e.g. about the extent of fielding changes permitted when the striker changes or the field was illegally set? Where is the supporting documentation? Are there any variations in recreational cricket competition rules with interesting or eccentric commentary? Atconsul (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Breaking the Non-Striker's Wicket when Attempting Run Out
I've changed the wording here because the Laws don't use the word 'intent' much. I've tried to paraphrase the Law without copying it by going for "If the bowler breaks the non-striker's wicket during the act of delivery (unless he is attempting to run out the non-striker)." which leaves the entry as neutral as the Law itself about whether the Umpire needs to take a view on whether the actions amount to intent, and what that might entail. Strictly even this is too many words at the moment, because under the current Law (but not the 2017 changes, nor the various professional regulations) the bowler cannot run out the non-striker during the act of delivery. But that's more for the Run Out wikipage...

There's a more substantial point here about what happens next in the game. If the bowler is attempting to run out the non-striker, the result must always be a Dead ball, either automatically (because the non-striker is Out) or non-automatically, as the umpire is required to call Dead ball when the attempt fails. Therefore if we were to add more words here, they should rather be about whether the batsman is out or not rather than whether he is in the crease or not. But any such expansion again wouldn't now really be about No ball, it would be about Run out, therefore I have resisted the temptation to add more.

Atconsul (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The bowler must satisfy the umpire that some part of the foot lands initially behind -or on- the line
I think this might now be the biggest problem with this page. There is not enough clarity or explanation, and folk have occasionally stumbled in here to attempt clarification. There is an audience out there that needs a great Wikipedia entry on this.

One big problem is the definition of the word LINE, which should not really appear at all. The Laws and Regulations discuss the real and imaginary constructions that form the cricket creases, so the current use of the word 'line' is just too vague.

The correct thing to do is probably to refer to the crease pages, but I'm afraid they need a lot of work even though the pictures there do attempt an imaginary line. We could also do with a picture, a photo, or a reference to such, that shows legal and illegal bowler's feet.

So anyone with the energy ... Atconsul (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source that on the line is a fair delivery. The Laws state:
 * 21.5 Fair delivery – the feet
 * For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
 * 21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery.
 * 21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised
 * -      on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and
 * -      behind the popping crease.
 * If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he/she shall call and signal No ball.


 * Merely "on the line" is a No-ball. It matters not whether you consider the crease to be the whole painted line, or just the edge of it closest to the stumps, but some part of the foot has to be behind the line. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It predates the law changes, but here is another source stating "on the line" is a No ball. Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes but just quoting the Law or restating it in other words isn't enough. Being right is necessary, but not sufficient, to explain the Law to all comers. You have now reverted the words to the ones I originally offered some time ago, which are technically correct, apart from the interpretation of benefit of the doubt. The problem is that this entry has often been subject to well-meaning correction and I have come to the conclusion that a significant improvement along the lines (oops) I've outlined (oops) above is needed. By all means let's have the text as it is at now in the meantime, but if you accept my view that the corrections have been well-meaning they do tell you something about the comprehensibility of the current Law and its explanantion here. Atconsul (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have quoted the Laws in an attempt to provide WP:V, a lot of the rest is WP:OR. If there are any sources that say that umpires allow bowlers to get away with landing on the line, then the text can be included as an interpretation of the Law. Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the source material! Like I said, I wrote the words that have been corrected. What I am offering here is not OR, it's experience of what has happened on this page leading to the conclusion that the page needs to be better. When it is better it will not disagree with what you have just written (apart from the assertion of OR). My final contribution. Atconsul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were trying to support the "on-the-line" section as being correct rather than offering advice on how to improve the page, which I agree is needed. I tend to just make incremental changes than overhaul pages, which is what seems to be needed here. I'll try to WP:AGF a bit more! Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation and the Concepts of no Ball, No ball and no-ball
I agree with Spike-em that the article should generally refer to no-ball, as this is its contemporary common use, although it is interesting that as stated in the article the ICC has fallen back into line with the traditionalists at the MCC. There is probably no evidence as to why.

The use of capitalisation is significant though, in the historic context of the game and its developmment.

Initially a no Ball is null - a non-event- when the Umpire calls no Ball he means nothing has happened - rather like when a modern Umpire crosses and uncrosses his arms by his knees when the bowler fails to complete his delivery stride - there has been no Ball. To the Georgian or early Victorian, it would therefore be inexplicable to hyphenate the phrase, or indeed capitalise the No rather than the Ball, since there is initially no concept called "No ball," simply the absence of any Ball.

The use of the sanction of "No ball" in the Law arises initially to prevent disruptive late Georgian innovation, and it means that there is an event, no longer a null: a No ball is no longer just the absence of a Ball, it is the occurence of an unacceptable practice for which legislation and consequence is provided. Eventually a No ball becomes an active passage of play in which runs are scored and batsmen can even be out.

The modern usage, "no-ball" as a compound phrase arises in part because finally a no-ball is a commonplace event in its own right, one that leads occasionally even to international diplomatic flurries or even imprisonment. And of course it is used both as a noun-phrase and a verb-phrase, "The Umpire will no-ball you ..."

I don't plan to offer the above in the page since I would need to back it up with some direct published references, but I am making the case that the algorithmic mass-editing tool approach needs to used with caution here. There is a place in this article for the specific use of the terms where special meaning, both historic and technical, is intended. Atconsul (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the different capitalisation outside of quotes. It has been decided that the occurrence is called a "no-ball" so that is how we should refer to it in the article. Unless you are going to clearly explain in the article the difference in usage it comes across as random and confusing. You have also edited to say that some time before 1811 that batsmen could score off the no-ball and not be out: this seems to be as close as possible to the current situation, so see no reason for a difference in spelling at all after this stage. Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I wouldn't want to get carried away with much disagreement about this: we're not *even* talking about spelling. The main point of significance here is in the period up to 1835. You have already acknowledged, "except where it is quoted or refers to usage in Laws," which doesn't actually rule out much in this article, as pretty much the only current references are primary or secondary reference to the Laws or regulation. Was the paragraph starting "Under the 1884 code" correct after your last edit according to your convention? It depends on whether "48A (umpire call of No ball)" is a direct reference to the Law, or just narrative.
 * Nevertheless I take the point and propose to restrict the use of No ball and no Ball as is now is, to 18th and 19th century history. (I've reverted the reference to the 1912 revision), and if you find that "random" perhaps quotation marks, italicisation or emboldening would regularise things satifactorily.


 * 'It has been decided that the occurrence is called a "no-ball"' Although as I say I don't generally disagree, I'm not clear who has done this deciding (if Wikipedia even has the concept of a decision: surely everything is provisional!) you cite "WP:UCN as per discussion at WT:CRIC" but I don't find any discussion there now and no comment or reference has been put on the Talk page. Can you note the URL please?


 * By the way, if 'we' have decided this is now UCN, given its nature and (minor) significance here, the article should say when 'major news sources' (by which we mean print and Internet media I think, as we don't really know which convention the TV and radio are using) started using this convention. Do we know? Atconsul (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was discussed In this archive as WT:CRIC. I did some checking as part of that about how news sites referred to no-balls then, though some seem to have varied over time. As an aside, does the assertion that "The ball was probably regarded as 'dead,'" come from the reference just before it, as it is otherwise difficult to prove? Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. I think it's a bit odd that there was no reference to this discussion on the No Ball Talk page. I had signed up to WP:Cricket but I don't get alerts across the whole project. I don't disagree with the outcome, but like anything else it has consequences and side-effects. I do think we will want consequentially to add something else to the section that is currently called 'Capitalisation Convention.'


 * The assertion is not mine. None of them is. It's from Rait Kerr. It's also in plenty of other sources including e.g. Broadribb, Gerald, Next Man in A Survey of Cricket Laws and Customs, Putnam & Co, 1952. There's no particular reason to cite this or anyone else as it doesn't add anything to Rait Kerr's mastery of this material, and it's not controversial, it just seems as far as we know not to be directly evidenced by primary material, which is the problem you identify. I would have referenced each assertion explicitly but we don't seem to care for that system in WP. Atconsul (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Can main umpire call a waist height noball directly?
I think yes Swagat parida (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Good question and one that frequently both arises and causes confusion, even amongst umpires. The 'main' umpire is the bowler's end umpire, if that's what you mean, in the sense that he is responsible for making almost all these calls, except as noted. The article already says yes, i.e. "... the bowler's end umpire ... calls and signals no-ball. When judgement of ball height is required (for beamers and short balls), his colleague (the striker's end umpire) will assist him with a signal."


 * We should make this clear and explicit in the article. To be clear, The bowler's end umpire is the only umpire authorised to make and signal this class of calls of no-ball, and he does not need to agree with his colleague, let alone receive a signal from him. The striker's end umpire is not signalling to anyone except his own colleague, and his judgement is very important in these cases, but not binding, and the bowler's end umpire can override him. Umpires are encouraged to signal to each other openly, but these signals are only for their use.


 * The interesting point is that both umpires are responsible at all times for the conduct of the game, so in principle the striker's end umpire might initiate action for a dangerous or unfair beamer (e.g. disciplinary action under law 42) even though his colleague has already decided not to call a no-ball. Perhaps someone can cite a case where this has happened.


 * The judgement of fair ball should still stand, though. Qualified umpires are taught to work as a team, so in their hands such a scenario is dwindlingly unlikely, but amongst lesser umpires it often happens that the striker's end umpire takes it into his own hands to pre-empt the other umpire, whose responsibility it properly is. In such a situation the scorers should expect to clarify the situation at the next available opportunity! One can imagine all kinds of controversy should the errant umpire thus distract the players before the ball is dead, a situation which probably forces the wise bowler's end umpire to acquiesce in his colleague's judgement.


 * One sort of difficult case that arose in from time to time in the 2018 season was that such a call might compel the bowler's end umpire to remove the bowler from the attack when he was not minded to do so. This is still a possibility, but the judgement of 'dangerous' is now made when the ball is dead, which defuses the situation, and allows the umpires to converse and make as considered a decision, together even, as necessary.


 * Please note: not all this information should make it into the main article, as there is no citable source material for some of these scenarios.Atconsul (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Batsman having to make ground on stumping
Regarding this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-ball&type=revision&diff=977680928&oldid=977591947&diffmode=source), a batsman who is not attempting a run on a no-ball can not be stumped by the wicketkeeper at all, and can only be run out by the wicketkeeper if the wicketkeeper takes the help of another fielder (Law 39 defines a stumping in part as "when [the batsman's] wicket is fairly put down by the wicket-keeper without the intervention of another fielder.", and Law 38 says that it is not a run out if the batsman can be called out stumped instead.) Thus, the wicketkeeper would have to pass the ball to another fielder and either have them effect the runout, or take the ball back and do it themselves. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes you are quoting relevant Law but you are coming to the wrong conclusions. True you cannot be stumped from a no-ball, so whatever happens we are considering whether it's a run out. The part of Law 38 you cite is therefore irrelevant during a no-ball. True, only the keeper may effect a *stumping*, and a fielder must not have intervened, but it does not follow that to effect a *run out* a fielder other than the keeper must intervene, and it isn't the case: keepers run out batsmen all the time without the intervention of a fielder, for example on the last ball of a limited over innings they frequently throw the ball at the striker's wicket and, in the simplest case, if the batsmen have crossed it's definitely a run out, and it's the non-striker who's out. A keeper is not restricted in doing anything in the field, it's just that he's specially privileged in some ways including being allowed to use the best gear!


 * Are you perhaps struggling, quite reasonably, with how to determine whether a particular sequence of actions during a no-ball makes the batsman vulnerable to a run-out and if so how it could be effected? I've offered an answer to the latter part here: it can be effected by any fielder, including the gloved one. The former part is where arguments have usually arisen and there's a good case for clarifying that on on this page, or by referring to the run out page where it might be better placed (if the run out page were more expansive on such regular matters, a problem for which I share blame.) The question of substance here only arises during a no-ball since the umpire doesn't otherwise need to state under which method of dismissal he's giving the batsman out until the scorers, keeper or bowler complain later about who gets the credit Atconsul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You said: "True, only the keeper may effect a *stumping*, and a fielder must not have intervened, but it does not follow that to effect a *run out* a fielder other than the keeper must intervene, and it isn't the case: keepers run out batsmen all the time without the intervention of a fielder, for example on the last ball of a limited over innings they frequently throw the ball at the striker's wicket and, in the simplest case, if the batsmen have crossed it's definitely a run out, and it's the non-striker who's out." My reply is that I never said a keeper can't run out a batsman off a legal delivery. You said "Are you perhaps struggling, quite reasonably, with how to determine whether a particular sequence of actions during a no-ball makes the batsman vulnerable to a run-out and if so how it could be effected? I've offered an answer to the latter part here: it can be effected by any fielder, including the gloved one." I reply that the law clearly exempts a striker from being run out solely by the wicketkeeper if the striker is not attempting a run (Laws 38.2.2 and 38.2.2.2). GreekApple123 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it is true that if it is a No ball, Law 38.2.2. "exempts a striker from being run out solely by the wicketkeeper if the striker is not attempting a run"


 * Smith (ref 10) makes clear that the reason for this clause is specifically to disallow a run out under the circumstance that would be a stumping were it not a No ball. Smith goes on to say that, 'if the batsmen then choose to run, a decision for Run out can still be made' (2019 edition page 325). Smith states that a batsman who moves forward after completing his attempted stroke is attempting a run. At that point the wicket keeper may run him out.


 * So to put it another way, 38.2.2 cancels the keeper's special right to get the batsman out for the case of No ball, but the keeper is still a fielder able to effect a run out if a run is attempted, just like any other fielder. Atconsul (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So now our only point of disagreement would seem to be on whether or not the footnote I added should be in the article. I think it's valuable for readers to note that a striker who is not attempting a run may still be run out, as this is probably not common knowledge. The references mentioned in this discussion can be added to the footnote. GreekApple123 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion here so far (given that it is a public one) is just a necessary preamble to the point it seems you want to make in the footnote you have offered so far, which refers to the thought of the keeper giving the ball to slip. It remains possible, given the absence of contrary Law, for a fielder to run out a batsman who is not attempting a run on a No ball, whereas this possibility has been explicitly denied to the keeper, but I must say I do not think this is a lacuna up for exploitation as you surmise, and the ploy you have offered (of causing a fielder to intervene) does not sound much like cricket. Perhaps this is moot analysis on your part? It would need a source of authority or a notable and citable case to support it here, else it is OR as far as I know. The references I have cited do not back up the point you seem to want to make and are not subsidiary to it; the references are authoritative and have merit for inclusion in the main article regardless Atconsul (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What if, instead of saying "wicketkeeper could give the ball to a slip fielder", it said "The striker may only be run out on a no-ball, when not attempting a run: a) by a wicketkeeper, if there is an intervention from another fielder, or b) by any other fielder. In all other circumstances, either batsman can be run out by any fielder"? That doesn't seem like OR, rather, it's a clarification based on what the Law says, and helps to more comprehensively cover all situations where a wicket may fall during a no-ball delivery. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added a paragraph to the main page to reflect what is explicit in the Law, without attempting to clarify anything that is not already clarified by the Law and its official support material. Goodness knows the Laws have become bloated enough since 1980 in a napoleonic sort of way. Going further, to attempt clarity where it is not provided, would I feel not be justified unless we could back it up with sources or cases. What I have added gives due weight to the explicit sub-cases and is I think sufficiently significant to be terse main text rather than footnote. There are no new references as it's all already cited, if not at sub-sub-clause level. It's important (to me anyway) that the run out page is now sufficient to support a click-through here, otherwise we'd be talking about a rare special case here that has no context to which our reader might refer in the scope of all run outs. As I have set it there, run out not attempting a run is already an unusual event amongst competent cricketers at any level, and will I trust remain so. Slice that by no-ball too and it's dwindling to zero, but tending to the limit on this has been an experience. And hey, tomorrow the case you're hoping for might come up in an IPL game so we can have another round. Given the absence of close fielders I'm not expecting it. Atconsul (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Striker's End Umpire
The term "Striker's End Umpire" used here is preferred to the commonly-used term 'square leg umpire' for several reasons:

- That's the way it's written in the Laws of cricket and all known significant playing regulations. - The Striker's End Umpire stands at point instead of square leg in several common circumstances:

- If sun and glare makes it difficult for the umpire to see properly from square leg.

- If the fielding team place a fielder close in at square leg (it is the umpire who is obliged to move in this case)

- If there is a left-hand and right-hand batter together at the crease and they run during the over. It saves time for the umpire to stay where they are, especially in amateur cricket, where umpire physical fitness criteria are not prescribed.

- Any other reason the umpire judges beneficial

The umpire will inform the batters when adopting an alternate position.

Wikipedia already benefits from (most of) this explanation, it is made in umpire (cricket) so it only needs a hyperlink here from no-ball. Atconsul (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Dangerous or Unfair Cases
Following a rather unexpectedly insistent reversal of my undo, where a reader has rather supposed that an "e.g." is indicated, I read a genuine difficulty in understanding.

So here is the point of substance: as discussed in the article in the sub-section 'dangerous or unfair,' dangerous or unfair play arises fom breaches of Law 41 that may cause the umpire to adjudge a no-ball. These are the dangerous or unfair cases that are introduced exhaustively in one sentence in the lead, hence "i.e." is correct.

I suppose one difficulty in understanding here is that one might well reason that *any* of the many no-ball cases in the whole article is at least 'unfair' to the extent that the batting team is given a fair ball and a penalty run in compensation, and that is true, but only the cases discussed are no-balls because they are judged unfair under Law 41 and hence have futher repercussions. So far the article has not felt compelled to stray further into territory that probably requires specialist treatment in Fair_and_unfair_play but each case does have its own numbered subclause in Law 41 (41.6, 41.7, 41.8)

Please continue discussion here if needed rather than to uncorrect the current -correct- content again. Or feel free to rewrite or add if you have grasped all the nuances and can improve the clarity. Thanks. Atconsul (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

OK I've added some of this to the head to make clear which no-balls are grouped specifically as unfair play. I do think this warrants some focus in the head of no-ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atconsul (talk • contribs) 12:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)