the 1st is a no ball, neither 2 or 3 are.

None of them are valid balls as the stumps are in the popping crease.

n1 dikkop

Maybe the bowler is bowling backwards, over his own shoulder?

Ignoring the stumps,

1st is a no ball
3rd is legal

2nd - I can't remember whether it's the front or back, or both, or neither, that are allowed off the pitch.

@Antipepp - back foot is not allowed outside the return (?) crease. Front foot is, but not over the popping crease. Therefore 2 is legal.

1 is a no ball

2 is legal
Watch Mike Yardy bowl to see his front foot outside the return crease

3 must be legal
Fast bowlers may slide, Spinners will often pivot to leave their foot out, as with the old back foot law, when bowlers often dragged their toe over, umpires are not able to observe the actual point of ball release if they are looking at a bowlers feet.

They are all no-balls as you are required to bowl towards the other wicket, not away from it as in these drawings.

Agree with the consensus (good catch with the stumps).

I wish that stupid car advert would get out of the way

Number 1 is obviously a no ball surely?

Number 3, if I remember correctly in the days of the back foot no ball rule sliding was not allowed. With the front foot it has to land with some part of it behind the crease, but can then slide. So thats legal.

Number 2 is a trickier one. Logic says to me that the back foot being outside the pitch crease would be less unfair than the front foot going wider than the pitch? So logic would say to me that that ball is a noball. But I could be wrong.

I'm fairly certain 2 will be a wide

saintlymark
23 Jul 2010, 11:48AM

Number 3, if I remember correctly in the days of the back foot no ball rule sliding was not allowed. With the front foot it has to land with some part of it behind the crease, but can then slide. So thats legal.

You remember incorrectly.

In the days of the back foot no ball rule, bowlers practised landing their back foot behind the line and then, remaining in contact with the ground, sliding their toe as they continued forward. The result was that they were able to send the ball down at the batter from about 18 yards. This became so common place in the 1950s and 60s that the no ball rule was changed from back to front foot.

It was argued that that these bowlers, who dragged their back foot were cheaters and that they should be no-balled.

One notable proponent of this technique was F S Truman who used it effectively to gain 307 Test wickets. One wonders how many less he might have got if he had bowled within the spirit of the game as well as within the laws.

Puts the whole Murali cheating chucker debate into perspective.

18 yards? Nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QrIdBG1yM

One wonders how many wickets Murali would have taken and at what cost if he hadn't been allowed to throw his doosra for 15 years.

1. No ball. Front foot.

2. Good ball. Only the BACK foot needs to be within the return crease I think. So long as the front foot is behind the popping crease then it's a legal delivery. Until, as someone pointed out, this 90mph Curtly Special flies away for 4 wides!

3. Good ball. The foot must land with some part of it behind the line. If it moves forward then it doesn't matter. In saying that as part of the back foot is behind the bowling crease, is that a no-ball?

@LordPesk

I'm fairly certain it won't. It's Curtly Ambrose not Steve Harmison.

IAEFRTFM.

Working on the basis that the lower line is the bowling crease and the upper line is the popping crease (and ignoring the duff illustration)

From the Lord's website Law 24

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html

5. Fair delivery - the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(i) the bowler's back foot must land within and not touching the return crease.
(ii) the bowler's front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised, behind the popping crease.
If the umpire at the bowler's end is not satisfied that both these conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

My interpretation of these examples:

1. No ball (ii) above
2. OK Ball . The back foot is OK. The front foot is just outside the return crease but as these are 4ft 4ins each side of the centre line of the middle stumps, and the popping crease extends to 6ft each side of the same line, the front foot has plenty of room (1ft 8 ins) to be in ground. See Law 9.
3. OK ball. The bowlers front foot has landed inside the popping crease. Whether or not it slides out is irrelevent. It has landed OK.