That couldn’t happen these days though - underarm bowling is now allowed only by prior arrangement according to Law 24(b).
I just watched a clip of the incident on YouTube.
The rules stated that no bowler should bowl underarm, why then was a “N0 ball” not given?
Presumably because, as Malacandra said, the rules have changed, perhaps as a result of this incident. I’m not an expert on the history of the rules of cricket.
WAG - the rules have changed since that incident?
“The Return of Heroic Failures”, by Stephen Pile, published by Secker & Warburg, 1988. ISBN 0-436-37351-3. Page 137. Pile cites the London Times.
But at the time of the incident the rules of that particular series stated that underarm bowling was not allowed.
A no-ball should have been called
The Wikipedia article doesn’t agree with you on that point, though it does state that a fielder was in violation of the fielding restrictions at the time and so the delivery should have been no-balled anyway.
Have a look at the clip on YouTube, this can be accessed via wiki
Towards the end the rules are shown and it quite clearly states that underarm bowling is not allowed
Too long, didn’t watch. When was the YouTube clip assembled? Where’d they get the rules from? All the textual references I can find state that the Law was changed after this incident.
As far as I can gather the clip was assembled immediately after the match.
It is shown on Australian TV with comments by some cricketer whose name I don’t know, not a cricket fan as I’ve said.
The clip shows 11 runs required, some batsmen are out which, after the scoring, leaves 6 required for a tied game.
After the underarm bowling the NZ players walk off in disgust and the rules of the series are then shown on screen
This game was part of a series sponsored by Benson & Hedges.
That company also sponsored cricket in England at this time and the rules of the English competition stipulated that no underarm bowling was allowed. The rules shown on the YouTube clip were for the English game. No such regulation banning underarm bowling was written into the Australian rules until this incident occurred, at which point they were amended to ensure no repeat behaviour ensued.
Which goes to show that relying upon a “YouTube” video as evidence of much of anything other than, at best, the actual event shown is dicey.
Ironically, of course, about one and a half centuries earlier the controversy was over whether overarm bowling was unfair and illegal. 
In which case I stand corrected and :smack: myself on the head
note to self…stick to football in future
Just to clarify my earlier comment concerning the English rules appearing on the YouTube clip, that’s exactly what happened on the original broadcast.
The commentator used the English rules to demonstrate (with the embargo on underarm bowling underlined on the relevant page) the difference between them and the Australian rules, pointing out the deficiency in the latter.
All this leads me to ask…what on earth people see in cricket?
I mean there is no excitement at all, at least none that I can see
Hmm… interesting question. Cricket has long been the butt of jokes along those lines… “Bill, I believe somebody just moved!” “Aah, yes, the man at deep square leg has just brushed away what appears to be an insect…”
Anyway, I’ve long since learned not to dismiss any sport, no matter how silly it might seem. For example, it took until his mid-thirties for this Australian lad to finally “get” The Beautiful Game, or Wog Ball as it is known here - and I’m glad I did.
As for cricket, there is excitement, but it’s not constant. That’s fine though, because you can’t maintain the levels of action in a five day (or even one day) cricket match that you can in an hour or two of football. But in good cricket (and like any sport, you can sit through a mediocre game), there is a metric buttload of tension right through it. Think of a cricket match as similar to a good movie. It’s not going to be all car chases, but the slower parts are not only still watchable, but they are integral to the game. Also, I like the slow bits. Watching a five day test is a whole different mindset to sitting down for a couple of hours of football and beer. The cricket is just there - on TV, in your car, on the internet, on your radio. You can do other stuff, and then run to the screen when you need to.
In fact, there’s something about the gentle tones of radio cricket commentary that is beautiful in a way that’s hard to describe. It’s a great thing to have in the room - even if you’re only paying partial attention. It reminds me of my childhood. You feel all is right with the world when there’s cricket about.
It’s probably not for everyone, but… geez I love cricket.
You’re right of course. Similarly, I personally wouldn’t give any of Picasso’s paintings house-room if I were paid, so that must prove his art is junk.
You’re what, about sixty, dude? If you haven’t got it by now then I obviously can’t make you get it. But for me there is plenty of excitement in, say, watching a batsman play shots to a ball that’s on him half a second after the bowler let it go and is capable of seriously hurting him if he gets it wrong, or wrestling with the complexities posed by a bowler who can make the ball spin a foot in either direction and who’s going to get him out if he plays one shot that doesn’t get the ball on the middle of the bat; or (for the balance of power isn’t all one way) watching a bowler trying to put the ball somewhere where a Flintoff or a Pietersen or <insert class batsman of your choice> isn’t going to smack it into the third tier of the stand. There are blazing fast reflex catches close to the wicket, where as G M Fraser makes Flashman say in Flashman’s Lady:
catches in the deep off a ball that’s gone up until it’s a dot in the sky, run-outs where a rifle throw from fifty yards beats a batsman’s dive for the crease by inches, and so on, and so on.
Understanding what is going on is as key to enjoying cricket as football; if all you see is twenty men chasing after a ball and kicking it until it happens to go into a net or, as often happens, an hour and a half goes by without a single score, you’d think football was the dullest thing on earth.
I’m 65 actually so you were close.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not decrying cricket at all, far from it.
I suppose being a lifelong football fan, and a bit of rugny on the odd occasion, leads me to not appreciate the points you raise
As a none cricket fan all I see is a guy running up, bowling and a batsmen either hitting the ball or missing it, I guess I don’t get what all the hooha is.
My brother and myself were given tickets to a test match at Old Trafford many years ago, after about 30-45 minutes we decided it just wasn’t for us,we left…there was no way we were going to sit through 5 days of that
Heh, people watch CHESS matches, for goodness sake, you know, the kind that take hours to play.
You have to appreciate what’s being done. If you are only appreciative of sports that have “action” throughout, then watch basketball. If you are appreciative of subtleties that show up only in the long run, and just want a lazy day in the sun, watch cricket. 
Btw, Baseball used to be much the same way. It’s only in the last 20 years we’ve managed to transform the game into something that you go to to watch home runs.