England v New Zealand, Super Eights, World Twenty20, Pallekele September 29, 2012

Finn bowls a good dead ball

ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from England v New Zealand in Pallekele

Dead ball

Recently against South Africa, Steven Finn was on the receiving end of several calls of dead ball when his leg broke the stumps on a delivery that Graeme Smith edged to slip, but Finn will have been glad of his protruding knee in the sixteenth over. James Franklin backed away and smoked a length ball wide of mid-off but Finn had broken the stumps in his delivery stride once more, and the umpire had called a dead ball to Franklin's ire. Finn then added injury to insult next ball, when he banged one in short to hit Franklin on the box.

Bluff of the day

Rob Nicol has a habit of advancing to fast bowlers, and perhaps he exploited that reputation when he fooled Finn into bowling him a short ball. Nicol shuffled forward slightly before Finn hit his delivery stride, and the bowler thought he saw him coming, so dug it in short. Nicol though, decided to stay in his crease after all, and Finn's delivery sat up nicely for him to crash it through the leg side off the back foot.

Dot ball of the day

Franklin had more to be angry about in the final over of the New Zealand innings, when he backed away once more, but Bresnan followed him to the leg side. Bresnan had gone too far towards leg though, and despite Franklin batting a foot outside leg stump, the delivery still passed well behind his boots. Umpire Taufel didn't see it that way, claiming Franklin had clipped the ball with his shoe on its way to the keeper. Franklin was understandably miffed and was still muttering curses on his way back to the dugout after being run out off the next ball.

Catch of the day

Doug Bracewell came in as a late replacement for Jacob Oram, who became the latest victim of gastric illness in a tournament now infamous for it, but Bracewell did precious little apart from field. He didn't bat and was called on only to bowl the last over of the match. He did, however, take a stunning catch at long on to dismiss Eoin Morgan. Running full pelt to his left, Bracewell didn't look like getting there until the final second, where he threw himself horizontally and plucked the ball six inches from the turf.

Andrew Fernando is ESPNcricinfo's correspondent in Sri Lanka

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • ygkd on September 30, 2012, 21:32 GMT

    Of course, bowlers at times have hit the stumps with their hands, but I've never seen anyone consistently hit them with their knee in their bowling stride like Finn does (and for the record I think he's an otherwise genuinely good bowler). That knee-strike though has got to upset the batsman's concentration considerably more than a mere flick of the hand (the latter being more of a bowler's problem and usually they'll pull out of the delivery). And anyway, who's talking about making up sanctions? The rules need to be changed, simple as that and then it can be left to the umpires to deal with properly. Cricket wants to sell itself to the world, but it must already have a hard enough time encouraging the understanding of its many and varied rules by the uninitiated without unfathomable anomalies like this. That should be the bottom line for the ICC.

  • skilebow on September 30, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    Just because of one T20 game why is everyone looking at this from the batsman's point of view! Finn should stop because distracting himself by hitting the wicket will almost certainly disadvantage him on more occasions than the batsman. End of!

  • ygkd on September 30, 2012, 8:38 GMT

    There is another, more creative way to solve this - the ECB could surgically extend Finn's lower legs by 16 inches so when he bent his knee sideways towards the stumps it'd sail harmlessly over the bails instead. There would also be a major side-benefit - cricket would get it's first 8-foot paceman, something that strangely didn't seem quite so important when Malcolm Marshall was around.

  • CUPULW on September 30, 2012, 4:09 GMT

    ygkd: for ur information Shaun Pollock used to hit the stumps often with his hand. his bowling action consisted of a jump that brought him close to the stumps. sometimes he would let go but other times he pulled up. however hitting the stumps with hand affects the bowler more than batsman. don't england have a bowling coach and skills coach and mental coach and what not?

  • allblue on September 30, 2012, 1:00 GMT

    The point about Finn's knee is that it is not covered in the laws. Following Smith's complaint in the Test match umpires have improvised the 'dead ball' judgement, but the laws as they currently stand do not allow for it to be called as a no ball. It is not really in the umpire's purview to start making up sanctions as suggested by ygkd below, and so presumably he MCC committee which deals with the laws will consider this is due course. Although I certainly cannot remember a bowler doing this before, some have from time to time hit the stumps with their hand and play just continued, as of course it did with Finn until Smith's intervention.

  • Meety on September 29, 2012, 22:02 GMT

    @ygkd on (September 29 2012, 20:44 PM GMT) - I think they should look at some sort of advantage rule for the batsmen. It's easy enough to do, if the ball is hit for 4, the ball is deemed to be fair, if it is snicked to slip, it's a dead ball. I am loathe to give more advantages to batsmen, as things weigh in their favour, however i agree that hitting the stumps with your feet is basically a no-ball & there should be negative ramifications for it!

  • ygkd on September 29, 2012, 20:51 GMT

    Finn may paid a price in the test series against SA when he bowled Graeme Smith only for it to be called no-ball but that penalty hasn't changed anything. Since then it's only been the batsmen who've paid for Finn's mistakes. Call no-ball please, ICC.

  • ygkd on September 29, 2012, 20:44 GMT

    Knees up, brother Finn - that's what the ICC must step in and say. Finn's dead balls cost NZ 7 runs off the bat. The law on this is inadequate. There are other rules relating to where a bowler can deliver the ball from. Why are the stumps any different? I can't remember stump-to-stump bowlers like Terry Alderman or Glenn McGrath knocking the stumps over (well, only at the batsman's end). Finn certainly has a lot going for him - but after 30 months of international cricket and 7 years of FC experience, it's time he kept his knees up and out of the woodwork or pay the proper penalty. It is not the batsman's fault. Why should they be penalised for doing nothing wrong?

  • ygkd on September 30, 2012, 21:32 GMT

    Of course, bowlers at times have hit the stumps with their hands, but I've never seen anyone consistently hit them with their knee in their bowling stride like Finn does (and for the record I think he's an otherwise genuinely good bowler). That knee-strike though has got to upset the batsman's concentration considerably more than a mere flick of the hand (the latter being more of a bowler's problem and usually they'll pull out of the delivery). And anyway, who's talking about making up sanctions? The rules need to be changed, simple as that and then it can be left to the umpires to deal with properly. Cricket wants to sell itself to the world, but it must already have a hard enough time encouraging the understanding of its many and varied rules by the uninitiated without unfathomable anomalies like this. That should be the bottom line for the ICC.

  • skilebow on September 30, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    Just because of one T20 game why is everyone looking at this from the batsman's point of view! Finn should stop because distracting himself by hitting the wicket will almost certainly disadvantage him on more occasions than the batsman. End of!

  • ygkd on September 30, 2012, 8:38 GMT

    There is another, more creative way to solve this - the ECB could surgically extend Finn's lower legs by 16 inches so when he bent his knee sideways towards the stumps it'd sail harmlessly over the bails instead. There would also be a major side-benefit - cricket would get it's first 8-foot paceman, something that strangely didn't seem quite so important when Malcolm Marshall was around.

  • CUPULW on September 30, 2012, 4:09 GMT

    ygkd: for ur information Shaun Pollock used to hit the stumps often with his hand. his bowling action consisted of a jump that brought him close to the stumps. sometimes he would let go but other times he pulled up. however hitting the stumps with hand affects the bowler more than batsman. don't england have a bowling coach and skills coach and mental coach and what not?

  • allblue on September 30, 2012, 1:00 GMT

    The point about Finn's knee is that it is not covered in the laws. Following Smith's complaint in the Test match umpires have improvised the 'dead ball' judgement, but the laws as they currently stand do not allow for it to be called as a no ball. It is not really in the umpire's purview to start making up sanctions as suggested by ygkd below, and so presumably he MCC committee which deals with the laws will consider this is due course. Although I certainly cannot remember a bowler doing this before, some have from time to time hit the stumps with their hand and play just continued, as of course it did with Finn until Smith's intervention.

  • Meety on September 29, 2012, 22:02 GMT

    @ygkd on (September 29 2012, 20:44 PM GMT) - I think they should look at some sort of advantage rule for the batsmen. It's easy enough to do, if the ball is hit for 4, the ball is deemed to be fair, if it is snicked to slip, it's a dead ball. I am loathe to give more advantages to batsmen, as things weigh in their favour, however i agree that hitting the stumps with your feet is basically a no-ball & there should be negative ramifications for it!

  • ygkd on September 29, 2012, 20:51 GMT

    Finn may paid a price in the test series against SA when he bowled Graeme Smith only for it to be called no-ball but that penalty hasn't changed anything. Since then it's only been the batsmen who've paid for Finn's mistakes. Call no-ball please, ICC.

  • ygkd on September 29, 2012, 20:44 GMT

    Knees up, brother Finn - that's what the ICC must step in and say. Finn's dead balls cost NZ 7 runs off the bat. The law on this is inadequate. There are other rules relating to where a bowler can deliver the ball from. Why are the stumps any different? I can't remember stump-to-stump bowlers like Terry Alderman or Glenn McGrath knocking the stumps over (well, only at the batsman's end). Finn certainly has a lot going for him - but after 30 months of international cricket and 7 years of FC experience, it's time he kept his knees up and out of the woodwork or pay the proper penalty. It is not the batsman's fault. Why should they be penalised for doing nothing wrong?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • ygkd on September 29, 2012, 20:44 GMT

    Knees up, brother Finn - that's what the ICC must step in and say. Finn's dead balls cost NZ 7 runs off the bat. The law on this is inadequate. There are other rules relating to where a bowler can deliver the ball from. Why are the stumps any different? I can't remember stump-to-stump bowlers like Terry Alderman or Glenn McGrath knocking the stumps over (well, only at the batsman's end). Finn certainly has a lot going for him - but after 30 months of international cricket and 7 years of FC experience, it's time he kept his knees up and out of the woodwork or pay the proper penalty. It is not the batsman's fault. Why should they be penalised for doing nothing wrong?

  • ygkd on September 29, 2012, 20:51 GMT

    Finn may paid a price in the test series against SA when he bowled Graeme Smith only for it to be called no-ball but that penalty hasn't changed anything. Since then it's only been the batsmen who've paid for Finn's mistakes. Call no-ball please, ICC.

  • Meety on September 29, 2012, 22:02 GMT

    @ygkd on (September 29 2012, 20:44 PM GMT) - I think they should look at some sort of advantage rule for the batsmen. It's easy enough to do, if the ball is hit for 4, the ball is deemed to be fair, if it is snicked to slip, it's a dead ball. I am loathe to give more advantages to batsmen, as things weigh in their favour, however i agree that hitting the stumps with your feet is basically a no-ball & there should be negative ramifications for it!

  • allblue on September 30, 2012, 1:00 GMT

    The point about Finn's knee is that it is not covered in the laws. Following Smith's complaint in the Test match umpires have improvised the 'dead ball' judgement, but the laws as they currently stand do not allow for it to be called as a no ball. It is not really in the umpire's purview to start making up sanctions as suggested by ygkd below, and so presumably he MCC committee which deals with the laws will consider this is due course. Although I certainly cannot remember a bowler doing this before, some have from time to time hit the stumps with their hand and play just continued, as of course it did with Finn until Smith's intervention.

  • CUPULW on September 30, 2012, 4:09 GMT

    ygkd: for ur information Shaun Pollock used to hit the stumps often with his hand. his bowling action consisted of a jump that brought him close to the stumps. sometimes he would let go but other times he pulled up. however hitting the stumps with hand affects the bowler more than batsman. don't england have a bowling coach and skills coach and mental coach and what not?

  • ygkd on September 30, 2012, 8:38 GMT

    There is another, more creative way to solve this - the ECB could surgically extend Finn's lower legs by 16 inches so when he bent his knee sideways towards the stumps it'd sail harmlessly over the bails instead. There would also be a major side-benefit - cricket would get it's first 8-foot paceman, something that strangely didn't seem quite so important when Malcolm Marshall was around.

  • skilebow on September 30, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    Just because of one T20 game why is everyone looking at this from the batsman's point of view! Finn should stop because distracting himself by hitting the wicket will almost certainly disadvantage him on more occasions than the batsman. End of!

  • ygkd on September 30, 2012, 21:32 GMT

    Of course, bowlers at times have hit the stumps with their hands, but I've never seen anyone consistently hit them with their knee in their bowling stride like Finn does (and for the record I think he's an otherwise genuinely good bowler). That knee-strike though has got to upset the batsman's concentration considerably more than a mere flick of the hand (the latter being more of a bowler's problem and usually they'll pull out of the delivery). And anyway, who's talking about making up sanctions? The rules need to be changed, simple as that and then it can be left to the umpires to deal with properly. Cricket wants to sell itself to the world, but it must already have a hard enough time encouraging the understanding of its many and varied rules by the uninitiated without unfathomable anomalies like this. That should be the bottom line for the ICC.