Calling a beamer

"A young opening bowler, whom I have known for a few years, having coached and captained him in the last couple of seasons, in his 4 th over, bowled a high beamer. As he is a fast bowler (bowling a fast ball), the ball slipped on release and went 4-5 ft above the batsman's head, and probably as wide too (out by the return crease). Having known him so well, I knew without doubt that this was purely accidental, and in no way malicious.
Irregardless of the accidental nature of this, I called and signalled the No Ball. I then drew a few shocks from the players & other umpire, by giving him a first warning for dangerous bowling. I went through the standard procedure of advising bowler, skipper, other umpire, batsmen etc.
This did not happen again, until he returned in a new spell towards the end of the innings, when he again accidentally bowled a similar beamer, which I also no-balled. I then gave him a 2nd warning etc.
In between these two incidents, somewhere in the middle of the innings, the other umpire No balled another bowler for a similar offence. From where I stood at Square leg, I felt that the ball (had it not been hit by the batsman), would have passed him at no more than thigh height.
Having struck the ball, the batsman miscued it and was caught, but given not out as it was a no ball. Despite it clearly not being a no ball, I was (of course), not in a position to overrule the decision, as it was not mine to make. Also, the umpire did not give the bowler a warning.
At the end of the innings, during the tea break, the other umpire suggested to me that I had been very harsh in my warnings.
I explained that my interpretation of the law, was that any beamer called as a No ball, by an umpire, is not subject to any interpretation of it's "dangerousness". By nature, it simply is dangerous, and must be subject to the warning processes.
He then mentioned that the one he called didn't seem "too dangerous" as it wasn't too high, so he didn't go through the warning processes.
At this stage I kept my opinion to myself, and didn't offer my opinion that he'd incorrectly called the thigh high delivery a no ball. I did however, offer my opinion that, having called it, he was bound by the law to warn the bowler.
I must say, that in my playing career, most umpires have not followed up the no ball call with warnings, and my doing so, was a novelty to all around me.

I ask the following questions.
Is my interpretation of the law correct, in that any accidental beamer called no-ball (as per Law 42 description) must be considered dangerous and a warning be issued?
Or, did my colleague have it right, by telling me that I should use my discretion regarding "dangerousness", as he had done? Also, am I correct when I say his thigh high call was incorrect?"

You are essentially correct in your reading of the Law.  There are, however, a couple of points that are worth making: 
Laws 42.6, 42.7 and 42.8 contain the definitions of and punishment for dangerous and unfair bowling.  Any umpire who ignores them in any respect is neglecting his duty of care and could be in serious difficulty if a batsman was injured as a result of the negligence and were then to sue for compensation.   Insurance is likely to cover it - but it might not!  Every delivery that is classified as dangerous and unfair under Laws 42.6, parts (a) and (b) MUST be called a NO ball and the umpire MUST follow the procedures defined in Law 42.7.  There is no place for sentiment; a dangerous delivery is dangerous even if it is unintentional and even if, in the category that we are discussing, it is well wide of the striker.  A bowler who so lacks control that he bowls three such deliveries in an innings is clearly a danger and should not be bowling.  It is not uncommon for umpires to ignore the very wide full pitch on the basis that it is not dangerous and/or not to warn the bowler.  They are, of course, wrong - and very foolish!

The question of the deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls, as defined in Law 42.8, is always difficult.  If the ball slips from the bowler's hand it is likely to fly high and wide and have some degree of 'loop', but if, however, it should be fast and straight and somewhere near the striker's throat it could well have been intentional.  The context of the match - body language, on-going bitterness, etc - and your colleague's view are the only guides you can have.

The fact that other umpires don't seem to know the Law is regrettable; your influence may, in time, help them.







Read more about Law 42.6, 42.7 and 42.8 (Fair and unfair play) at the MCC website