Finn's Problem will now be a No-Ball

http://www.espncricinfo.com/mcc/content/current/story/605852.html

Well done to the MCC, this should get him to correct the problem much quicker.

Excellent decision. The status quo was unacceptable.

Some people will argue that breaking the stumps is fine, and that Smith's gamesmanship caused all this. But I don't agree with that. It seems completely reasonable to me that a bowler should be expected not to knock the stumps over.

Makes sense. Removes all the ambiguities over the interpretation of a dead ball.

Can't be that hard to just not hit the stumps surely?

John Etheridge has perceptively suggested on Twitter that Finn joins only a handful of other cricketers to force law changes.

Others that I can think of so far are Douglas Jardine, Greg Chappell and Murali. Brian Rose may also have forced a change to the rules, but relating to one-day cricket only, that was probably a playing condition not a law.

Any others?

The West Indies fast bowlers don't forget also forced law changes as a result of excessive short balls per over.

Well I'm going to dissent and say it's ridiculous.

I don't believe a top class batsman can possibly be put off by a bowler's knee brushing the stumps in his delivery stride, so the only people Finn is harming is himself (can't be good for the knee) and his team (reduces drastically the chances of a run-out at the bowler's end). Bowlers flicking the stumps with their hand has never been that rare (Pollock and McGrath did it relatively frequently to name 2) and never been a problem - now it surely must be. All this has come about because of Smith making a thing out of it. Next we'll be banning Malinga for his slingy action, or the finger clicking accompanying most flippers.

As for Duty's point "this should get him to correct the problem much quicker" this is if possible more ridiculous than the decision itself: if anybody seriously thinks you can coach a fault out of someone by threatening punishment if they do it wrong, then I'm lost for words. Ignoring the fact that it is obviously not the point of the MCC or the laws of the game to attempt to coach perceived bad habits out of players.

I have a lot of time for the MCC and the cricket committee in general, but this is a nonsense.

An excellent decision I would say.

Agree with Mike here. Getting over fussy about this I reckon...batsman concentrating hard on watching the ball out of the hand probably doesn't even notice the bail falling...

Have seen wickets broken at the bowlers end often enough in all grades of cricket , and usually either : the bowler stops; no-one really notices until the ball has been played; or (rarely) the umpire decides he should intervene and calls a dead ball. Admittedly Finn does it rather more often than most so I imagine it must be at least a distraction to him , but since the umpire is empowered to take action anyway if he feels a batsman is disadvantaged I do not see why every such incident should now be termed a no ball. Suppose this has arisen because umpires have started calling dead ball whenever Finn breaks the stumps , sometimes depriving a batsman of runs...well I reckon that was just down to poor umpiring in the first place.Surely international umpires can be trusted to use sensible discretion ?
The one merit is that at least there is now no argument about the decision in future.

What happens if a bail blows off in the wind as the bowler runs in

I would think most will be put off by a bail flying in their eye sight. They can even spot a man wearing yellow shorts from 100 metres away.

Good decision, imo.