After the 2019 ODI World Cup, the ICC moved swiftly to change the laws of the game after the final – one of the greatest matches of all time – was marred by a farcical finish.
Three years on, and after an almost identical set of circumstances – a classic encounter with some final-over controversy thrown in – the governing body now has another glaring error in the rules staring it in the face, which must be addressed.
Back at Lord’s in July 2019, England claimed world cricket’s biggest prize not by scoring more runs than New Zealand, and not by taking more wickets – but because following a tied game AND super over, they had hit more boundaries.
The three crucial byes scored by India in the final over of their thrilling win over Pakistan on Sunday night weren’t quite as ridiculous as all that – but good luck telling anyone from Pakistan.
With a rampant Virat Kohli facing a free hit following a spectacular choke from spinner Mohammad Nawaz, who followed up a waist-high no ball with a wide, the left-armer finally found his range to get past the Indian megastar’s bat, bowling him neck and crop.
The problem was that as it was a free hit, Kohli couldn’t get out. Consequently, with the ball ricocheting away down to third man, India were able to steal three byes – just one run fewer than if Kohli had middled the ball like he had all night away for four.
Cricket has many bizarre rules and loopholes attached to it, from bygone relics of the gentlemen’s game causing ructions in the modern cutthroat world such as ‘Mankads’, to unintended consequences of recent additions to the laws.
Surely the fact India were able to run three byes following Kohli being castled is one such loophole. Surely the person at the ICC who invented the free hit rule in limited-overs cricket did not intend for a circumstance such as this.
Being unable to get out is already an advantage in and of itself – there was no risk for Kohli in that instance, meaning he could and did swing for the hills.
It’s already enough of a disadvantage for the bowler to have to come in knowing that they cannot dismiss the batter with this delivery, and have to bowl to a player who knows he is in a no-lose scenario. The fear of losing a wicket is the most powerful tool in a bowler’s arsenal; depriving them of that is punishment enough for a no ball.
It was ridiculous that Nawaz, in bowling the perfect ball for that scenario (incidentally, probably the only ball he got right to Kohli in a final over from the blackest depths of hell) actually ended up with him and his team badly disadvantaged by it.
Virat Kohli is bowled by Mohammad Nawaz off a free hit. (Photo by Daniel Pockett-ICC/ICC via Getty Images)
Equally, in a situation like this, the bowling team is further disadvantaged by the decreased likelihood of being able to inflict a run out. With the bails disturbed, Pakistan keeper Mohammad Rizwan was forced to pluck a stump from the ground in an attempt to catch Dinesh Karthik short of his ground, adding precious fractions of seconds to the whole process.
Karthik was safe anyway in this instance, by the way: but the principle still stands.
It’s time for the ICC to mandate that, should a batter be ‘dismissed’ in the normal sense of the word on a free hit, by being bowled, caught, LBW or stumped, the ball is deemed dead and no runs able to be scored off it; similar to the ruling when the ball strikes an umpire, or hits the Spider-cam wires – which we also saw on Sunday night at the MCG.
If the bowler is good enough to respond to the situation and take a ‘wicket’, their sole punishment should be that the batter remains in.
Not only is this the right thing to do for the fairness of the game, it adds another element of consideration to the taking of a free hit. Right now, batters have the freedom to swing knowing that, should the ball hit the stumps, it’s essentially a free run.
Make this tweak to the rules, and suddenly Kohli would have faced the reality that, should he go for a six and be caught, or try too much and be bowled, he might be safe from being dismissed, but he’d give up a precious, precious dot ball.
Surely this would only add to the drama of the situation, and put some form of pressure back on the batter to regain something resembling an even contest between bat and ball?
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch cricket on KAYO
Look at Kohli’s face as he plays the shot – it’s his ugliest of the night. Eyes closed, one hand coming off the bat, he swings lustily across the line without a care in the world. There is no chance he plays a slog as hideous as that if there was any threat that being dismissed could result in a dot.
Just to be clear, this is not in any way suggesting that this moment cost Pakistan a victory, or indeed that it in any way diminishes one of the greatest, most exciting and most iconic matches of the 21st century.
Kohli’s heroics, like those of Ben Stokes in the 2019 ODI World Cup final, deserve all the acclaim they have and will continue to receive – it’s just that the way they got their teams over the line deserves close scrutiny to ensure it can’t happen in quite that way again.
The T20 game is already an impossible enough ask for the bowlers – there is no sense in maintaining a poorly thought out loophole in a rule clearly not designed to exist that makes things just that little bit more unfair.
It’s just not cricket.
Joshua Makepeace
Roar Rookie
Thank you, Tim, this was needed.
ummi
Guest
Sold out game umpire gives no ball on batsman's appeal i haven't seen this before
Jamie
Guest
It’s a FREE HIT, so why should the ball become dead just because the stumps have been disturbed? The ball is not dead after an unsuccessful run out that dislodges the bails. And catching a batter on a free hit is simply fielding. It’s not FREE if the ball becomes dead. If the ball hits the spider cam, then the ball is rebowled, so this is a different situation. I agree that in this case, it shouldn’t have been a no ball and ball tracking should be used to call the no ball for above the waist.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
It’s our deeply ingrained sense of fair play that makes us fight for justice on these vital issues.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Aha! I thought you’d ask. If it doesn’t get to the boundary, all good cricketers won’t take the overthrow. Just like not Mankading without a warning :laughing: ! Have been on special assignment again. Hope you’re doing well Jeff.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
What I have always hated about the free hit idea is why should a fielding side be deprived of the chance to take a wicket off two deliveries just because they bowled one illegal one - it amounts to double punishment.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
I had no idea this rule existed. I always assumed that if a wicket came from a “free hit” that the ball was dead. This is how it should be. It needs to be considered in a similar fashion to world rules pool. Upon giving away a foul the player isn’t actually awarded “2 shots” as it is sometimes locally interpreted. The foul in international rules is “two visits to the table”. So while in many places locally, if a player pots one or more balls on their first visit to the table, the penalty is lost. Where as in international rules, a player plays until they fail to pot a ball, then they get a second visit to the table. For cricket it needs to be seen as a second visit to the crease if dismissed by a ball on a “free hit”.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Apparently the third umpire can't check it unless the batsman is dismissed off the delivery. Which makes it all the more strange that the umpires were willing to make such a tight call on a delivery that had been smashed for six. I'm pretty sure Kohli would have been happy for Nawaz to keep bowling there lol
JamesH
Roar Guru
Good comments
JamesH
Roar Guru
The third umpire now reviews all front-foot no balls. But I'm not asking for the umpires to review the decision, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't be making such a big call on the field when it was at best 50/50 - especially when the ball was only bowled at medium pace.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Given Nawaz's bowling that over, I'm inclined to believe it was accidental. If umpires are going to worry about fairness to the batsman when they make a decision like this, rather than calling it strictly to the letter of the law every time, they surely have to look at the circumstances of the actual delivery. I understand wanting to discourage someone like Rauf from bowling beamers but in this case a waist-high full toss from Nawaz's gentle mediums was already a gift to Kohli. He didn't need a questionable bonus.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Agreed. It was just a gimmick to encourage big hitting anyway
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
What are you talking about?? The ball is dead when a batsman is dismissed. Being bowled off a no-ball or free hit, the batsman is not dismissed. It's no different to a legal delivery clipping the stumps and not dislodging a bail, or the striker smashing the ball down the pitch and it canons into the stumps at the bowlers end and careers away for runs.
Niles Adams
Guest
According to the MCC, the Free Hit is NOT actually part of the Laws of Cricket and only exist in certain playing conditions. Now, if it wasn't a free hit and Kohli got bowled off a no ball, he would be free to run the byes. The free hit is the "punishment" for a no ball so maybe the same rule should apply.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Warner scores a 50 every 3rd innings in all formats combined Finch hits in the air thru cover and is done, Stoinis has shown he's like Maxwell - playing a level too high to produce consistency. Marsh is up for a productive tournament. Some players pay for improvisation and learn. Others? Never.
Loosey
Roar Rookie
The 6 Kohli hit over fine leg with a flick of his wrists was as sweet a 6 as you will see. Pure class.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
But the batsman isn’t penalised: he just isn’t rewarded for screwing up. He doesn’t get out, he just doesn’t get a run. Since he can’t get out, why wouldn’t he hit out? Even on a free hit you’d be an idiot to *try* to get caught, rather than try to reach the boundary. What sort of batter, offered the chance to have a free hit but told that if you get “out” you won’t score, would say “oh well I better not take the risk then”? There is no risk! Not that I care whether batters who get caught on a free hit can run: I just don’t think runs should be given when the ball has hit the stumps.
Homer Gain
Guest
Squealing about perfectly well understood rules after the fact seems an Aussie things these days. How about just applying the rules correctly, rather than allowing Kohli to demand a no-ball for a delivery that clearly would not have been above waste height in his normal guard. Or better still, just telling Nawaz not to fling a series of full bungers and leg-side wides at one of the best batsmen in the world. Nah, much easier for a lazy author to generate clicks by playing up to Aussies who still can't get over someone other than them winning a world cup (and, bizarrely, seem much more distressed about the 2019 final than most Kiwis).
Clear as mud
Guest
how can it be overthrows if the ball doesn't even get to the stumps?
Paul
Roar Rookie
I reckon the rule could be that the batter cannot be caught, to promote going for the big shot. Stumping should be allowed, you should still be good enough to hit it if advancing out of the crease