Why is it legal if a batsman takes guard outside the crease, but when the bowler does so it is not
Wondered why it is perfectly within rules for a batsman to take guard outside his crease, but a bowler is not allowed to step over the crease before he bowls? Cricket experts and fans will try to dispel this confusion in rules.
This question haunts me ever since I reached the age to understand what is allowed and not allowed in any form of cricket and this one aspect still puts me in confusion.
The batsman takes the guard outside the crease, of course, to derail the length and accuracy of the bowler so this is allowed. However, if a bowler steps over the crease while bowling it will be declared as a no-ball, and a free hit will be awarded in the shorter format of cricket. Why is it so? After all, coming in to hit the ball outside the crease is an entirely different scenario as the batsman originally stands behind the crease but standing outside the crease before the ball is being bowled surely should not be allowed.
This different yardstick clearly shows the rule favours mostly batsmen but not the bowlers.
The batsman takes the guard outside the crease, of course, to derail the length and accuracy of the bowler so this is allowed. However, if a bowler steps over the crease while bowling it will be declared as a no-ball, and a free hit will be awarded in the shorter format of cricket. Why is it so? After all, coming in to hit the ball outside the crease is an entirely different scenario as the batsman originally stands behind the crease but standing outside the crease before the ball is being bowled surely should not be allowed.
This different yardstick clearly shows the rule favours mostly batsmen but not the bowlers.