Talk:Underarm bowling incident of 1981

2006 comment
The point of the historical article underarm bowling is to discuss a vital and essential aspect of cricket's history and NOT to dwell at length and ad nauseum on the doings of the Chappell family. I have therefore followed precedent where a controversial incident is deemed worthy of inclusion on the site by giving it its own article. That means the key article can be developed according to its context and perspective in historical terms and not in the terms of modern media sensationalism. Incidentally, I doubt if underarm bowling was ever used (i.e., legitimately) by first-class teams in Australia or New Zealand, hence the key article does not belong in the categories covering the histories of those countries. --BlackJack | talk page 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

underarm bowling?
So, I do not know anything about cricket. As an American, I know I am not alone in that respect. The entire thrust of this article baffles me. What is "unsportsmanlike" and "contrary to the spirit of the game" about underarm bowling? Correct me if I am wrong: you can either bowl underarm or overarm. One or the other. If one of your (only) two options is considered so galling as to have only been attempted a handful of times in history and to have created an international incident, why was it ever legal to begin with? And why wasn't it done more often? Can a comparison with a tactic or incident in a non-commonwealth-specific sport like soccer/football or baseball be provided to further illuminate this incident?--Dmz5 01:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, the article on underarm bowling does not shed any light for me.--Dmz5 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For our American friends, here is a roughly equivalent situation in baseball: it's the last game of the World Series, and both teams have won 3 games each. Two outs, bottom of the ninth. The batting side is trailing by 2 runs, but has men on second and third base. If the batter hits a home run, his team wins the series. Instead of throwing a fair ball, the pitcher decides to walk the batter. Now pretend there's a rule that says the game is over after that last pitch. Can you see why the New Zealanders were so upset? :) 220.233.33.142 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

> why wasn't it done more often?

Because they had recently changed the Rules. Classic cricket can go on for days; they had just "jazzed it up" with (what we might call) a limit on the number of pitches (pitcher-batter throws) per game.

> ''World Series... pretend there's a rule that says the game is over after that last pitch.''

Good. In baseball, pitch-count per se never ends the game. Cricket added such a rule, for a shorter match, and discovered the Unintended Consequence.

That match was at the limit, near-tied. The pitcher used an outdated technique to an absurd extreme. He reached the pitch-limit with one unhittable yet valid pitch, and won the match with it.

Whether it was valid, or sporting, or unhittable, etc, is debated. But underhand was very-very unusual at that time, and rolling had never been a common technique.

In US baseball, such a dribble is illegal from the start: pitch must not hit the ground; we have a Strike Zone. This is to define what types of pitches are "valid". We DO have a "pitch limit per batter": pitcher serves 4 out-zone balls to one batter the batter walks to base, if a batter misses 3 in-zone balls he's done for the inning, so a "valid" pitch must be well-defined.

In classic cricket, there are some rules about where to put the ball but not so clearly defined. That worked fine until this particular situation: a slim lead and a pitch-limit.

Apparently the upshot was a 2-bounce limit. This seems to require the ball to be in the air at some point where the batsman can swat without catching the bat in the dirt. Not too different from baseball's old rule "above the knee", just adapted to a tradition (rule?) where the ball bounces at least once.

Consider baseball's "bunt". It is now commonly accepted and expected. But the first time, it was controversial, despicable. So was base-stealing. Passing in US football, and running in basketball, likewise caused uproar the first time. Spit-balls, bean-balls, curve-balls, built-up mounds, quarterback sacking, insulting yo mamma... maybe we are not outraged because we've always been unsportsmanlike.

Imagine Dickey Pearce's 1866 "tricky hit", the first bunt, happened in a globally televised World Series, tied series, 9th inning, bases loaded. Instead of swatting to the outfield, a 150 year tradition, he dropped the ball halfway to the pitcher's mound, and a runner came home while the surprised pitcher and catcher were scrambling. Not the same rule-bending, but the same potential for outrage.

The US has re-invented all our games, from cricket and rugby and others, into our own forms, and re-re-invented constantly. Cricket has re-invented itself, but far more slowly, and had just re-invented again when this happened. Change can be exciting. PRR 68.239.136.129 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In football, there have been some cases, where a player is injured, and the ball is not knocked out of play and stopped. It is considered unsporting to continue playing when an opponent has fallen. In some cases, and perhaps comewhat frequently, teams have continued playing whilst their opponents are injured and scored a goal. In this case, the player actually rolled the ball on the ground, exploiting a loophole so the batter could not hit it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not really the same, because it's dealing with an injury. But in many sports, teams do do things they wouldn't usually do, to protect the lead. In gridiron, they waste time getting in position, and run down the clock (I believe 45 seconds is allowed). In many ball sports, the team with the ball can simply keep possession. Even in cricket, a team can bowl more defensively to protect its lead. All these are within the rules and not considered unsporting. But sometimes things in sport within the rules are considered unsporting. Deliberate time-wasting between points in tennis comes to mind. Calling for the ball when the other team is in possession in basketball (and other ball sports) is another. Just why underarm bowling falls in the "unsporting" rather than the "sporting" category is quite hard to define, now I think about it. Perhaps because it was a rarely-used, forgotten, rule. Perhaps also because cricket, like golf, is meant to be gentleman's game so the expected rules of conduct are a bit different. Rocksong 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, even hanging onto posession to waste time is often considered slightly unsporting in some codes. The real point is not only that cricket had moved on so far from the days of underarm bowling that it was generally forgotten, but also that it was not just underarm, it was rolling. Perfectly legal at the time, but the completely changing the nature of the game. JPD (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm an American and thought the reaction was weird too. Just seems like good strategy to me. In baseball if you're afraid a player will hit a home run (which I guess is like a six in cricket) then you walk him, i.e. you don't give him any good pitches to hit. Potato potahto I guess. -AW 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Underarm bowling in the laws of cricket
Did they actually outlaw underarm bowling, or just grubbers as I suspect? And is round arm still legal? Damn it, gonna have to read the conditions.... A grubber is a no ball these days, suprised it wasn't then to be honest. --LiamE 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Answering my own question, well yes its specifically outlawed... Law 24 (the no ball law) shall apply... with a change to Law 24.1 - Mode of delivery - "Law 24.1 (b)shall be replaced by the following: The bowler may not deliver the ball underarm. If a bowler bowls a ball underarm the umpire shall call and signal no ball, and the ball is to be re-bowled overarm." So there you - or me in this case cos I asked the question - have it! --LiamE 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is that from ? ICC Test/ODI playing conditions ? Tintin (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn it - I just wrote a whole lot answering the orginal question then lost it all in an edit conflict. But yeah, thats from the ICC test conditions. --LiamE 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay second time lucky. To answer the original question its important to remember that in cricket, unlike many other sports the spirit and traditions of the game are important, so much so in fact that law 42 states "The responsibility lies with the captains for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game, as described in The Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket, as well as within the Laws." The spirit of the game covers stuff like "sharp practice", not questioning umpire's decisions (although players might say after the match they were "unlucky" if a decision didn't go their way) and treating other players and officials with respect. Although at the time underarm bowling wasn't outlawed explicitly there was 100 years or so of tradition of bowling overarm so it was not within tradition. In addition bowling underarm makes for a very poor spectator sport so they'd all be out of a job if it were commonplace! So although the ball was legal it was against tradition and therefore the captain, who told the bowler to bowl like that, broke law 42. It could also be described as "sharp practice" and therefore outside the spirit of the game which is enshrined in the game's law. You can read the rules - which include the spirit in which the game should be played -in their entirety here --LiamE 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The preamble to the laws didn't exist at the time, so any talk about "spirit of the game" wasn't anything official, and underarm bowling had been accepted less than 100 years earlier. As for underarm bowling being banned, as mentioned it was banned in playing conditions almost from then onwards, and in the changes to the laws themselves in 2000, both grubbers (or any ball bouncing more than twice before the popping crease) were made no-balls, and underarm bowling was banned - at least, the new law says "(b) Underarm bowling shall not be permitted except by special agreement before the match.". JPD (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I was entirely clear in my answer above as it was a quick rewrite of my original and its getting a bit confused now as someone decided to move it from its original section. Yes the ball WAS legal when it was bowled BUT was against the spirit and tradition of the game. The spirit and tradition of the game had not been enshrined in the laws at that period otherwise it would have been illegal but it was understood by all, players and spectators alike, that the game should be played in a certain spirit. As for the 100 years claim, you might have guessed I pulled that figure out of the air as a rough and ready figure. 10years, 100years 1000years, whatever. The point was it was a considerable number of years, not that it was 100 years to the day or something. In any case, overarm bowling was legal in 1864 or so and roundarm since 1828. Underarm was basically unheard of by the turn of the century so being pedantic... something over 80 years of tradition. The reason the the spirit and tradition were not in the laws is that it has always been considered a gentlemanly game and that gentlemen would never need to be told to behave in a manner befitting a gentleman. To a gentleman cheating, sharp practice and unsportmanlike behaviour would be unthinkable and being labelled as such an intolerable insult. The worst insult ever received by the MCC was that the England side were being unsporting in the bodyline tour! They had no problem with the Australian board saying they were menacing the best interests of the game or being responsible for personal injury...but they did demand an immediate retraction of the word "unsportsmanlike". Put simply what law 42 now states has ALWAYS been expected. So no the captain didn't break 42 as such as it wasn't written then, but law 42 merely codified what was already expected, hence at the time there was outcry that he had broken the spirit and tradition of the game, not that that what he did was actually against the written law. In codifying the spirit the MCC that "Whereas in the past it was assumed that the implicit Spirit of the Game was understood and accepted by all those involved, MCC felt it right to put into words some clear guidelines, which help to maintain the unique character and enjoyment of the game." Soooo... going back to the original question, originally it was ONLY legal to bowl underarm. As the game developed roundarm and later overarm bowling became legal and soon replaced previous methods. They were never made illegal till much later as no one wanted to use it anymore, so there was no need to. A diferent bat is needed to play overarm bowling (ie the modern shape as opposed to a hockey stick type as used with underarm) and the new bat shape had been entrenched in law after it had become traditional. Sportsmanlike (and unsportsmanlike) is a common term in many sports. Basically it is about playing sports with good manners. For instance it is terribly unsportsmanlike to laugh at an opponent for missing a shot in golf, or walk across their line before they putt, or perhaps dancing around in celebration at making a shot with your team mates all over the green while your opponent still has to play (take note American golfers). Some sports are not played in such a manner such as football where diving (ie trying to get a penalty or free kick awarded by cheating) is commonplace. In other sports cheating and ungentlemanly behaviour is simply not tolerated. An accusation of a golfer filing an incorrect card would be very serious - perhaps getting them thrown out of their club. If a golfer even makes a genuine mistake on his card he will typically retire from a tournament. In cricket an accustion of ball tampering (a similar offence can occur in baseball) in a recent Test lead to a team refusing to return to the field. Someone found guilty of cheating in such sports would likely have their career ended. To put the whole incident in a baseball context it would go something like this. A couple of hundred years ago in the game that developed into modern baseball they used hockey sticks and rolled the ball along the ground. After the pitcher was allowed to throw the ball everyone stopped using hockey sticks and they were made illegal and started using baseball bats instead as these were needed to face the thrown delivery. Now skip ahead 100 years where all the pitchers pitched and all the batters used baseball bats. At the end of an important match the batting side needs a home run off the last ball of the night(not that there is quite such a thing) and the pitcher thinks to himself, well they never got round to making rolling illegal and he cant hit a rolled ball for a homer without a hockey stick, so I'll just roll it and we win the game. So he goes ahead and rolls it. It would be quite legal but its just not how the game is played these days. For other instance of sportsmanlike behaviour in cricket a good example is Courtney Walsh who could have got his team a place in the world cup semi-finals by mankading an opposing playing but instead chose to warm him as is traditional. His team went on to lose, whereas they could have won if he were unsporting. In many sports he would have been crucified for letting the game go over a matter of tradition. But he was playing a gentlemanly sport, where how you conduct yourself is perhaps as important as the result, and to my knowledge has only ever received praise and commendation for his action. As they say, "Its not if you win or lose, but how you play the game." --LiamE 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's one hell of a paragraph. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with you, jsut thought it was worth mentioning how the laws had changed, not just the playing conditions, and the fact that both grubbers and underarm bowling were specifically outlawed. Apart from that, I'm still fairly sure that the unsportsmanlike feature was the fact that it was rolling, not the underarm delivery. The underarm bowling article doesn't seem to think that underarm bowling was "basically unheard of" by the turn of the century, or really until WWI. Law 42 was in place in 1981, and said the captain was responsible for playing in the spirit of the game, just not the preamble about what the spirit of the game is. The codification of what this means is in part a result of this and more recent incidents, and I don't think reading the preamble necessarily give a good idea of what going against the spirit of the game meant 20 years earlier. JPD (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I found out last night there was even more to it than that. Underarm bowling had been outlawed in English tournaments but the Aussie board hadn't got round to catching up. As for the underarm bowling article implying it was used up till WWI well it looks like we've unearthed a conflict. The history of cricket article says that it had died out by the 20th century (though I suppose it doesn't say what year!) I'll try and find an accurate independent source and get the two to tally up. Here's the video with Richie's thoughts about it and I have to say he was spot on. This one is nothing to do with it, but it is very, very funny. And yeah, had he lobbed it up underarm in a manner where it could be hit there wouldn't have been any problem, but that would have defeated object. So yeah it was the rolling that was the real issue. Now that really did die out in cricket a very long time ago. --LiamE 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Youtube link
I had added a reference link to a youtube video of this incident, then somebody reverted it.

Certainly, youtube raises some Napster-like issues, but it seems to be a lot more acceptable to the big media outlets, so I really have to wonder if adding a youtube link raises copyright violation issues for Wikipedia.

Rather, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB states that "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:"

"3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."

Doesn't youtube really seem to fall into this category?

I admit that I'd rather see the video be completely public domain, but failing that, I really wonder if a youtube link to a video of this incident isn't appropriate here.

Baccala@freesoft.org 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But the copyright is held by Channel 9 and youtube is violating its copyright. From External links : "There is no ban on linking to (Youtube, Google video etc) as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."


 * If you need more clarification, I suggest that you bring it to WT:CRIC (which is a thread created to discuss this particular video), where people who know better than me will be able to explain it to you. Tintin (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha, curse of the edit conflict! Tintin said pretty well what I was going to say. Rocksong 06:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's another issue with Youtube - the videos are often taken down, especially if they are copyright violations. I'm sure that lots of Wikipedia editors would like to bump up their edit counts by putting a YouTube link at the bottom of every article, with e.g. individual episodes of The Simpsons, Dr Who etc, but after six months most of the links would be dead, and the original editors will have left Wikipedia. Youtube is badly susceptible to bitrot. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many fielders outside
The end of the article makes the uncited claim: "The underarm ball was technically a no-ball, because Australia had one too many fielders outside the field restriction line." I don't know much about the rules of cricket in 1981, but for as long as I can remember, one-day cricket has had fielding restrictions in the first fifteen overs of the game only. This was obviously not within the first fifteen, so (if the current rules held sway then) the Australians could stand where they liked. Repton infinity 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is the restriction that at least four (or is it five ?) fielders should be inside the circle at all the time. I remember it from the late 80s onwards. Perhaps it was introduced much earlier. Tintin 01:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was definitely in place at the time and I distinctly remember one of the Channel 9 commentators commenting on it at the time. Rocksong 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would take your word and won't bother too much if a reference is not added, but if you are adding it, the current one is not sufficient because it is not "verifiable". For commentary, it has to be Great ODI Matches DVD, published by ABC or some such. Tintin 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a tricky one. In theory, isn't it possible to purchase the footage from Channel 9? Anyway, a much better idea would be to find a reference in a cricket book. See this Usenet thread from 1993 where someone comments, "This is fairly well documented. Most books (Well all the books I've just looked up anyway) mention it."; the same user later says, "As to whether it occured or not, Ian Chappel was the commentator at the time who noticed it. Lance Cairns in one of his books mentions it as as well.". So I think someone can a find a book that covers the match, it's sure to be in there. Rocksong 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Lillee said in 2007 that he was one of the fielders that day (at mid-on I think he said) who were meant to begin walking in as the bowler made his run-up, and for the ball in question, he failed to do so, so was outside the circle when the ball was delivered. This would mean (given the fielding restrictions in effect) the ball was a no-ball. I have done a brief search for a source for this, but I recall seeing it in an interview in 2007, so I presume there is a written or video source out there somewhere. DermottBanana (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Charity match underarm
I added a charity match underarm (Hadlee to Greg Chappell). I don't remember the year, but it was a while ago. It was possibly the first charity match in which players were miked up. I also think it was the same match in which Fatty Vautin took a spectacular catch, which according to the Vautin article would make it 1994. Can anyone remember that or (even better) supply a reference? Peter Ballard 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember this, think it was back in the mid 1990s. What was notable was how Greg Chapell handled it. He had obviously thought about what he would do (probably he had already had some friends or team mates who had already down it to him after 1981). He casually just kicked it with his foot so that it slowed and skidded in front of his bat, and then before the ball stopped he whacked it like a golf shot to the boundary for four runs. NiceDogE2 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Greg Chappell not apologising?
Refer http://www.mcg.org.au/History/Cricket/Memorable%20Moments/The%20Underarm%20incident.aspx AND http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1035164.htm I have added a "Dubious" tag. Surely the MCG official website and the ABC would know the truth ? And if Greg has apologised maybe Trevor has as well then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrod1960 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Citing the TV commentary
There are currently two claims in this article (about Lillee failing to be inside the oval, and what Ian Chappell said while commentating) which refer to the TV commentary. The clip is available on YouTube and this calls both claims into question. Ian Chappell does not appear to be commentating on the TV at all, and the commentator who is (Bill Lawrie?) does not mention the Lillee no-ball question. Should these claims be removed until they can be cited? DermottBanana (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The clips on youtube (well "clip", because they all seem to be copies of the same video) are edited unfortunately - you can notice a break at about 6 minutes before Howarth walks onto the ground to protest. Given Richie's monologue at the end, I think it's a video of the nightly highlights package, not live video of the day. I'm sure I remember a commentator mentioning it. Also, as mentioned above, someone on Usenet in 1993 (not exactly a reliable source) says it's mentioned in Lance Cairns' book. Anyway, it might be better leaving it as "citation required" because "Channel 9 commentary at the time" is useless as a ref. Adpete (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found an online ref, so I was able to remove the Channel 9 ref. Adpete (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) (Added) I just hope that article didn't use Wikipedia as a source! So an old book reference would be even better. Adpete (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This book mentions it too. But it's from 2011 so, like the article cited above, I'm not convinced it didn't just rely on this Wikipedia article (which would make it a circular reference). Adpete (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How many runs?
The article states that the delivery method made it impossible for New Zealand to get a six. I did not find any mentioning of how many runs they received for this ball. Is the answer too obvious to be mentioned? T om ea s y T C 21:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)