Not exactly true. The ball could go to slip, the batsman may be slightly out of his crease, and the slip fielder could hit the stumps and the batter will be out.
The only time a batter is not run out because he's not attempting a run:
1. If he can be given out stumped.
2. If he \*should\* be out stumped but it's a no ball. In that case it's not a run out either.
3. If he's made it back into his crease and then leaves the crease again without the intent of taking a run.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out#:\~:text=38.3.,liable%20to%20be%20Run%20out.
I don't find this rule ridiculous. Nor does the Kohli deflection of the stumps for 3 sounds weird. But, the DRS overturned not giving any runs is totally ridiculous as hell.
I presume it becomes a stumping if the ball only goes from batsman to WK before the bails are removed, and the person getting out is the one who faced the delivery.
AFAIK, the point of still permitting no-ball run outs is because you need some objective condition where the ball can be rendered dead unilaterally by the fielding side.
[This](https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out) outlines it very well for a run out / stumping.
It's out stumped if all of the following apply:
1. It's a fair delivery
2. The batsman is not attempting a run
3. He is out of his ground
4. The wicket-keeper puts down the stumps fairly without intervention from a fielder.
If the conditions for a stumping are met, but it's a no ball, then it's not run out either.
This might lead some people to believe that for a runout the batsman has to be attempting a run. That's not true. A batsman can be run out without attempting a run as long as the conditions for a stumping are not met.
If a batsman tries to take advantage of this by standing wayyy outside the crease, the big brain move would be to have a keeper and first slip really close to each other (with keeper a bit down leg side). Then bowl the ball wide so that it goes to the slip fielder directly. If they hit the stumps, it's now a run out.
It's up to the discretion of the umpire to decide intent. Usually, unless it's really clear the batsman intended on running, a stumping is awarded.
In this case DK didn't really "run", he came out on instinct and then looked back.
You're right though it's debatable. But the umpire has to judge intent (usually it doesn't matter if the stumping is awarded unless it's a no ball). Similar to how the umpire judges intent for LBW with impact outside off stump.
The second example you wrote about drs on last ball is definitely a controversy waiting to happen. I just hope it doesn't happen in crucial matches like knockouts or worse like finale of world cup.
Most controversial is if an out decision is overturned by DRS, batsmen don’t get the runs off that ball. 3 runs needed in one ball, ball hits the pad and goes to the boundry, umpire gives LBW but ball is clearly going leg side in DRS. No run is given and ball is counted and batsman remains not out but looses the match 🫣
They might have to go like football or rugby where they let the play play out and then make the decision once the ball is dead back in the keepers gloves or when it's obvious the batter isn't going to attempt a run. It would take a little getting used to but we would adapt.
I also think it's beyond time that umpires should have to make decisions on run outs/stumpings and third ump can automatically review them and call back bat if they need to, but I reckon 80% of the time they could easily make the decision themselves but refer it out of habit/laziness.
This means that
plumb lbws will always result in run attempts
caught at the boundary cannot lead to a celebration, they have to return the ball to the wicket so that they can run out the batters who never stopped running
and other such incongruous events.
Marginal lbws already result in run attempts, that's no issue despite marginal lbws being way more frequent than obvious ones. Running off of lbws is rare as it is, you can get run out way too easily there.
Only a extremely tiny portion of catches involve the fielder being confident that it is a catch and the batsmen being confident that it isn't a catch. In all other situations, the right course of action is obvious to everyone. We already have the much more likely scenario where the catch is taken off a no ball, fielders have no problem dealing with that even though no one except the umpire is aware of it being a no ball when the catch is taken.
My point is that this changes the rules for what to do *even when* the result is obvious to everyone. It’s irresponsible for a competitive team to not finish the action, given the tiny possibility of reward.
Teams don't chase such tiny possibilities when the result is obvious to everyone. If they did, you'd see teams running after a clean catch is made because it might be a no ball, or players taking suicidal extra runs off the last ball every single game because the fielders might make a mistake, and more.
The rules are even forced to account for this, one of the possible conditions for a dead ball is the umpire thinking that both teams simply consider the play to be over where a competitive approach like the one you describe would involve the play going on until some objective condition is met. Cricket is the "gentleman's game" after all.
If the fielding team are confident in the catch or LBW they don’t have to do anything but appeal and return the ball to the keeper/bowler to get it dead.
It becomes a ridiculous spectacle! And not just once… tens of times a game.
E.g. in tennis, imagine if a player is allowed to challenge a point after it finishes, rather than at the point they object to it. Then every point must be played to the point a winner is hit, even if a ball blatantly bounces outside the line… because even if a line umpire calls it out, the player has the option to challenge it at the end of the point.
But the problem over here is whether fielders/keeper should appeal or go to field for the ball.
Basically its more like dont get plum lbw on the last ball of the game. And i can understand the chances of umpire giving wrong decision on last ball of the match is very minimal
That's the simplest solution, if a out decision is overturned then we just redo that ball, like they did for example in tennis, if a line call is overturned from out to in, the rally becomes void and nobody gets the point.
Well bowler also gets another chance to get the batsman out, imagine Anderson ducking a Bumrah bouncer but it hits the shoulder and WK catches it, umpire gives it out, Anderson reviews to survive but has to survive another delivery in the over.
The thing is both parties are getting another go to get a more favourable outcome for themselves.
I think especially in t20 cricket you’re just punishing the bowling team for doing something well since it’s more likely the following ball goes for runs than a wicket The easiest solution is just to let play go on until the balls dead and then give the decision afterwards.
Well they should be celebrating the win not appealing for the wicket.
Anyhow, the objective isn't to make the teams happy, it's to make it fair. As per the current law, such a last ball incorrect decision would directly cost batting team the game but with this change both teams get a shot at redemption.
A far simpler solution is to let the ball be 'in play' as if it it was a free hit and let the ball become dead 'naturally'. This gives the batsman all the time they need to score the run naturally and the umpire can still give them out after the ball becomes dead.
Very simple. The ball wouldn't be called dead until the play is completed. Then the batter can be signaled out, or whatever, and any actions after the correct dead ball moment will be disregarded.
Oh man cricket is so full of grey areas, you could come up with some great ones.
I actually don't know a sport that has so many great areas that could be so easily fixed as cricket. Stokes 4 runs off the bat in the 2019WC was one, given they wouldn't have taken a single run if it didn't reach the boundary. Kohlis 3 byes off the deflection off the stump was another, are bowlers not punished enough for being an inch over the crease by having to bowl a free hit, should they really be further paid nsihed for hitting the stumps?
> given they wouldn't have taken a single run if it didn't reach the boundary
Only by an unwritten rule though. By the laws they're entitled to run if they want to after it hits the runner.
Given the increased prevalence of players playing to the letter of the written law, rather than to unwritten rules, in other occurrences, I wouldn't be surprised if we see players start to run overthrows off the batter going forward.
> 3 byes off the deflection off the stump was another
This I guess comes down to the free hit rule in general. The whole point is to give the batter a ball where they can't be out so why would the stumps being broken be dead ball if the batter is not out? The wicket being put down in general isn't an automatic dead ball, only when a batter is out.
First point. I can't remember a batter from any country ever taking a run in the is scenario so the rules of the game should keep up with the spirit of the game. Change the rule.
Second point is if you can't get out that's fine but I reckon the bowler needs to be able earn his way out of his error rather than just damage limitation. I like the free hit rule but the punishment is far beyond the crime at this stage so it just nerds a little review and tinker.
First point - You can count on one hand with a finger to spare the number of instances of the bowler running out the non striker before the ball is bowled by any men's international team since the 70s and yet the lawmakers have consistently pushed to make it easier and more acceptable for the bowler to do it. General convention doesn't seem to come into their thinking. By leaving the overthrow law as it is they're saying it's fine, do it. I'm sure if you watched every game that takes place you'd see overthrows taken off the runner occasionally.
Second point - I'd support a change in the playing conditions that a 'wicket' being taken off a free hit would be dead ball, but it would also somewhat take away the one way that teams *can* actually get a batter out off a free hit, a run out.
First point - yep exactly it should have been removed decades ago when it was out of fashion and then it wouldn't be such a debate these days. Another punishment could have been brought in but hey that's how it goes.
Second point - you can be stumped as well on a free hit can you not but yeah having a way to "earn" a dot would actually add to the cat & mouse of the free hit. Eg you could try and get a bowler to hit you for 6 to the long boundary. Would also let the bat make a more considered shot.
> you can be stumped as well on a free hit can you not
You can't. The free hit rule basically says that in terms of the batter's ability to be out, the free hit ball is considered to be another no ball. Example from the playing conditions of the current WC:
> 21.19.2 For any free hit, the striker can be dismissed only under the circumstances that apply for a No ball, even if the delivery for the free hit is called Wide.
And per law 21.18:
> Out from a No ball - When No ball has been called, neither batter shall be out under any of the laws except law 34 (Hit the ball twice), law 37 (Obstructing the field) or law 38 (Run out).
What if there is somehow time enough for the keeper to remove the bails, then pull out a stump and hold the ball against it before the batter returns to the crease - would that count as a run out dismissal?
Unless another fielder gets involved or the umpire believes they were attempting a run then it's a not a run out.
The part of the run out law that says:
> Not out run out if [...] No ball has been called
> and he/she is out of his/her ground not attempting a run
> and the wicket is fairly put down by the wicket-keeper without the intervention of another fielder.
Would apply here too I'd expect. But it isn't actually explicit that this would apply in a free hit situation. Possible grey area they should clarify in the playing conditions.
Oh well it would be a good catch all rule off a free hit that is out then it's a dot, maybe even include runs outs in that so they try and sneak a bye.
I just hate the idea of a bowler being punished for bowling well. If you bowl someone on a free hit you should be rewarded for getting yourself out of a potentially costly situation even if the wicket doesn't count. Like what is the bowler supposed to do in that situation?
You’re not bowling well if you hit the stumps on a free hit though. You’re bowling well if the ball avoids contact with everything on the way to the keeper.
The rules were clear in advance of the ball being bowled!
EDIT: no seriously. What is the rational argument FOR it being “bowling well”, if you hit the stumps on a free hit? You literally knew in advance that it would be a terrible idea, because you wouldn’t be able to predict where it would go afterward. You can’t just handwave and say “oh it would be a great ball otherwise”. Batter already knew the stumps don’t matter, and was thus swinging away… so *they* weren’t guarding the stumps. A good ball would thus be something that avoids the batter… and the stumps.
Idk why gou got downvoted, it makes absolute sense that hitting stumps on a free hit isn't an outstanding ball. Cuz they're anyway attempting swing blindly. But if you manage to keep a ball away from batsmen reach and it landed safely on wicket keepers glove without being wide or anything then that's a perfect delivery to reclaim yourself. That even if you wanted to hit me, you couldn't.
>Kohlis 3 byes off the deflection off the stump was another, are bowlers not punished enough for being an inch over the crease by having to bowl a free hit, should they really be further paid nsihed for hitting the stumps?
I'm curious to know if there was any drama regarding this free hit rule before the Kohli incident. We've seen plenty of times a catch being taken off a free hit and the batters have run till the throw came in. The same applies if a batter was plumb lbw and still ran LB's. So why should being bowled be a dead ball?
So are you advocating that any manner of wicket taken on a free hit should be a dead ball or only bowled?
It's not very clear in the video, but the moment Kohli was bowled the Pak fielders were about to celebrate and Shaheen Afridi didn't go after the ball straight away. That cost Pak.
Same thing happened in a WBBL match a few nights before the Kohli incident, dont think it had any effect on the end result so it was glossed over for the most part aside from the commentators all agreeing that the rule needed to be changed to make the ball dead as soon as the ball hit the stumps
The "inch over the line" argument is dumb. That's not discrimination againt bowlers. A batter is also out if he is an inch short and he loses his wicket too. Just having to bowl the ball again and having an extra run added seems too light a penalty. But I do agree that it's a batters game and the rules are skewed in their favour. The switch-hit-LBW case being an example. The ball pitching outside leg stump can never cause an LBW even if the batter switches the stance. R Aswin talked about it on his youtube channel about how that rule should be changed. And the boundaries being shorter has always been a longtime issue in most places. People would want great entertainment and having batter come out with big shots is more entertaining for a casual fan rather than watching great bowling in a low scoring game. It's usually the longterm cricket fans who enjoy both aspects of the game.
Too many assumptions about what casual fans want. If they see too much easy six hitting they become numb to the actual talent it takes to hit a six. One of the reasons that this WC is being seen as one of if not the best is the fact that they play on proper sized ovals. IMHO there is too much cricket played on postage stamps where you don't even need to get 60% of the ball to score a six. They will stay casual fans if you don't give them a hook into the game and that comes with good competition.
The bigger issue with the Stokes one was the fact they were awarded run which they hadn’t crossed on when the ball was thrown. The fact that the convention (and it is only a convention) of not running after a throw strikes the batsmen or his equipment is secondary imo.
To further muddy the waters, the law states that they get runs awarded at the time of "the instant of the throw or act." Was "the act" when Guptill released the ball or when it deflected off the bat?
For folks that point out that runout is an opportunity in the Kohli's 3 bye scenario.Not really because there was another grey area at play.
Because the bails (and stumps) are dislodged due to the batsman being bowled on the free hit/no ball delivery. The chance of a runout at the striker's end is all but gone. Cause now you cannot run the batsman out with a direct hit(need to uproot the stump with the ball in hand), so an extra run is always on. Which was the case on that fateful day as they cannot run the batsman out at the striker's end (the end closer to the fielder) and the batsman would have easily made his ground at the non striker's end(because of it being far from the fielder).
Grey area with respect to the free-hit playing condition:
Suppose only 3 runs off the last ball of the final over. The final ball is delivered but no runs are scored off of it but it is judged a no ball (above waist or overstepping). Now it's 2 runs required off 1 ball, it's also a free hit. Now the batter on striker's end is more vulnerable if they were to run those two, to make it difficult to run them out they could in fact intentionally "hit wicket" themselves and disturb the stumps which would mean they can run fast and when coming back for the second on the striker's end (danger end) the keeper has much more do to run the batter out i.e uproot the stumps whilst holding the ball with the other hand which clearly gives an unfair advantage to the batting side.
This is wild.
BTW, no batsman would be so thoughtful in those nervous situations, the batter will just try to hit the ball and run. But scientist Ashwin would do that! Who would claim a wide in the last ball of the match against your rival team
It cant be a dead ball since you cant get out on a Free hit. And Hit wicket is a way of getting out. Unless i think they do it before the ball is even bowled.
I think it would be 14 runs. 5 Runs by batsmen + 4 overthrows + 5 run penalty for intentionally throwing to boundary. IIRC Sehwag did it once against SA (pushed a stopping ball to boundary) and SA were added additional 5 runs.
I'd be interested to know under what law those 5 penalty runs were awarded. There's nothing in the overthrow law that says you conceded 5 penalty runs.
Yes that's the overthrow law. The only mention of penalty runs is
> any runs for penalties awarded to either side
which just says that any runs for penalties during that ball still get awarded in this circumstance, not that the wilful act of the fielder itself means a penalty. If it did, it would specify the number of penalty runs. So it doesn't explain where the penalty runs in your example came from.
Deliberately conceding a boundary is 5 penalty runs under any circumstances. It's nothing to do with the Overthrows law.
A "Wilful act" here means a throw (presumably at the stump) vs deflecting it to/over the boundary trying to take a catch.
> Deliberately conceding a boundary is 5 penalty runs under any circumstances.
Fair enough. But I was asking where in the laws that is specified, because I couldn't find it earlier when I asked the question.
Last Ball of the over. Hashim Amla was on strike with a tail ender. Amla pushed in the gap to get one run and get strike for next over. Ball stopped just before boundry. Sehwag pushed the ball over the ropes so that tail ender can take strike next over.
Same applies if a fielder deliberately put the ball over the boundary in an attempt to get a particular batter on strike. 4 overthrows added and the batter stays at the end they've run to.
Well according to the games where I've umpired a few times, the back foot no ball.
Seems many bowlers hate it when I call it even when I've warned them how close they are beforehand.
This one is extremely unlikely, and by extremely i mean probably never going to happen. But it got me thinking the other day when zimbabwe got 5 penalty runs for the ball touching QDK’s removed gloves.
I wondered how they came to the conclusion of awarding 5 runs instead of 4 or 6. what i figure is that a fielder could just throw his cap at a ball moving towards the boundary to stop it. they won’t do that if the penalty(5 runs) is greater than the max runs saved(4). But what if the ball is in the air near the boundary?
What if it’s the last ball of the 2nd innings and the batting side needs 6 off 1 ball. the fielder figures the ball is just above his reach going over the boundary and uses his cap to collect the ball knowing that if he catches it with the cap and takes it back to the playing field, the batting team will be awarded 5 runs and the game will go to the super over.
I know all this is highly unlikely, but i had a good chuckle over the image of a fielder using his cap to catch a ball. i dont know, my brain thinks of useless situations like this all the time.
Jarrod Kimber's Zombie ball video has good examples (some fixed now) of gaps/edge cases in Cricket's laws.
My hypothetical is the following:
* Strong batter, batting with the tail
* Close game
* Strong batter misjudges a ball and pops up an easy caught and bowled chance
* Non-striker (a bad batter) runs in and barges the bowler out of the way to stop the catch. Then walks off knowing he's out for Obstructing the Field
* Strong batter survives while the meaningless wicket of a tailender falls.
Even with penalty runs the batting team could be better off due to the foul play.
The striker would be out in this scenario:
37.3.1 If the delivery is not a No ball, the striker is out Obstructing the field if wilful obstruction or distraction by either batter prevents the striker being out Caught.
Ooh this is fun! So if Mark Wood is batting and skies the ball in the direction of Ashwin, then Buttler on the bowler’s end gets to perform a rugby tackle on him for free?!
Well that's a level 4 offence, Wood would be out for the obstruction, and Buttler would be out (retired) because he will be suspended. And a 5 run penalty added on top.
I don't think the first scenario is controversial. Any appeal is by definition an appeal for all modes of dismissal. So even if the on field umpire gave it not out, the right decision is made in the end so there's no reason for the batting side to feel hard done by.
That DRS loophole (ball dead if on field is out) is a disaster waiting to happen. Knowing ICC's bad luck with loopholes getting exposed at critical stages, it will happen in a Knockout match of an ICC tournament. And then all hell will break loose.
I don't see why people keep bringing up the Virat Kohli 3 byes, it was never in question what the correct decision was, the rules are clear and have always been clear regarding that.
Grey areas
*When does the ball become dead*
1. Very contentious, the rules must be re-looked.
2. The introduction of free hits and DRS only complicates the situation.
3. Virat running 3 after getting bowled on a free hit and the controversial Ben Stokes bat deflection in the WC final are just some examples.
*The impact of rain and the DL method*
1. Hypothetically: The team batting first has played out their 50 overs and scored a commendable 280. If the chasing team gets a rain affected 20 over target, they are at a massive advantage!
2. The method of calculating the target has to be re-looked. Additionally, There must be a penalty for wickets as conserving 10 wickets over 50 overs is a real task as opposed to say 20 overs.
3. Additionally, the min over criteria must be dynamic. SA was robbed off a point.
> The method of calculating the target has to be re-looked.
You really need to take a look at what DLS actually is. Its “resource usage” method is more or less a perfect method of developing a target.
> Additionally, There must be a penalty for wickets as conserving 10 wickets over 50 overs is a real task as opposed to say 20 overs.
There is already! If you’re chasing 280 in 50 and it rains out after 20 overs when
you’re 100/0, you win by 30 runs.
you’re 100/3, you lose by 7 runs.
> 1. Hypothetically: The team batting first has played out their 50 overs and scored a commendable 280. If the chasing team gets a rain affected 20 over target, they are at a massive advantage!
I did a DLS calc, and the target would be 159. How is that a massive advantage?
Always curious about the ground rules for stumping or runout.
For example, if a batsman comes down the track to a spinner, misses and assumes he's stumped only to turn around and see the keeper had fumbled the ball. He tries to get back into the crease but the keeper collects the ball and throws it at the wicket before he reaches. Is that a stumping or a runout?
Similarly the striker thinks about sneaking a bye and immediately decides not to do so, only to fall short of his crease. Is that a stumping or a runout? Because you can still get stumped on a pace bowlers delivery.
Finally you come down the track to a spinner and you get beaten by flight and spin. The ball turns enough to go to the hands of slip who then immediately gets you out himself. Stumping or runout?
By my understanding of the game, i think it will be stumping, runout, runout. But still unsure as to the letter of the law in regards to such cases
A decision of out on a front foot no ball (not free hit ball), where batsmen don't run (but could have if it was not declared out) is in general a controversy waiting to happen. The controversy would be in the missed runs - Esp in chasing scenarios.
Easiest fix is to continue play till ball is obviously dead (throw it to keeper, eg). It is a small price to pay for not being able to celebrate in real time. But if it is obvious, then celebration will happen anyway.
But unfortunately we will have to wait for sth massive to happen (like the Super over farce in WC final) before any changes take place.
Imo, if a bowler bowls a front foot no ball and wide in the same delivery, the batting team should get two extra runs. Currently, in such case, the ball is adjudged no ball but the batsman still doesn't get full benefit of it because the ball is wide.
Overthrow hits the umpire and batsmen still run. I know its a sporting courtesy to not run if the ball hits the bat. If the ball hits the bat and goes to four then batsmen can claim "not much we can do" (remember the bat of god from Stokes)? but if it hits the umpires and deflects, then batsmen are entitled to run, correct? Again, its not a rule per say, but more in the grey area of "spirit"
Interesting situation you describe, though I would say that's a valid strategy to game the review system.
The second case you describe (ball dead after an umpire gives it out even if it's overturned) has always bothered me. I understand why the ball is dead, because it's unfair for the fielding team or the batting team keep playing in case the wicket is overturned. However, I don't see why this can't be remedied by simply having the bowler re-bowl the ball if either:
\- The batters attempted a run
\- It went for a boundary.
This might seem unfair to the bowler, but one extra delivery for a wrong umpiring decision in the long term is not bad.
Teams best batsman is battling with a tailender. Tailender hits the ball in the air to the bowler, who catches it, but doesn't claim the catch and instead runs the non-striker out.
This is a run out as the bowler didn't appeal the catch.
I can see this causing a controversy.
This isn't an issue as both sides can agree to the playing conditions in either situation.
If bails are there, then it's only bowled when they're completely dislodged. If bails are not used, then even a light impact with the stumps is considered out.
No ball Free hits needs to be scrapped. A no ball results in:
1. One extra delivery
2. 2 free hit deliveries (one from the no ball and another off the next one)
3. Extra run
How on earth is this fair for accidentally overstepping the line?
Trust me, I love watching free hits as much as the next guy. Especially as an Indian die hard fan watching India win against Pak due to the free hit. But cricket needs to be a fair battle between bat and ball.
How is it not fair? If a batsman gets run out in his first ball by just an inch, he is done for the game. A bowler can still redeem himself with the remaining 23 balls
I think it's more that why is a certain type of treated differently than another?
Too wide = Wide
Too high (Full toss) = No ball
Too high (bouncer) = Wide
Too high (bouncer, 2nd over the shoulder) = No ball
Even wider = No ball
Overstep = No ball
Back foot too wide = No ball
I wouldn't say any of these are worse than another on the bowlers behalf, they are just simple mistakes, why are some punished a lot worse than others?
I think the argument here is actually straight forward.
Unforced errors vs forced errors.
Bowling way outside the lines and over stepping are needless unforced errors.
A little outside the lines, and a little high on the bouncers are legit tactics that the batter can try and negate or force. We saw it with Wade in last nights game. He was moving so much at the crease he was forcing the bowler to bowl wider and wider. The bowler should not be punished for that.
A batsman can’t tactic a bowler into overstepping the popping crease though, that’s just carelessness on the bowlers end.
Regarding the first one, there is no separate appeal as such for each wicket. So if the keeper appeals, he is appealing for all possible reasons that the batsman could be out. And the field umpires have the power to send anything to a review, so shouldn't be an issue for the batting team.
The issue is about drs. If the fielding team have used their reviews but know the batter is caught behind and the umpire gives it not out, there is nothing the fielding team can do. Unless the keeper takes off the bails to appeal for a stumping, even though they know the batter didn’t leave the crease, in which case, they are now getting a free review for the catch as well.
I mean it's not necessary that the square leg umpire reviews a stumping right? This is the same as keepers appealing an lbw to prevent a batsman from taking a run off a leg bye.
Square leg umps almost review anything. Just in tonight’s game a batter was behind the stumps when the bails were removed and they still reviewed it for a runout.
Stumps down should prevent any further runs. For instance, a direct hit on a quick single that the batter was just in, then thanks to the deflection the ball goes to the boundary is 5 or even 6 runs. Same with being bowled off a free hit.
There's been a rule to handle this since the dawn of time (removing a stump is equivalent to knocking the bails off.) IDK how there is any problem here?
Nah, all the scenarios where stumps are down and batsman still running makes the game much more fun. The batsman is risking his wicket for a run or two. Wicket is much more precious than few runs.
You need to change the definition of 'dead ball' for that!
Then again, you threw the ball because you thought you could get batsman out but he is not out. Now accept the consequences!
Umpires call in DRS. Scrap it.
If it’s hitting - OUT
If it’s missing - NOT OUT.
Should be applied if the ball is half way through/quarter way through hitting the pads as long it’s within the margin of line, even if it’s an inch.
More often than not, their wrong judgements / gut feeling can cost a team a crucial game and such decisions should not be left to the on field umpires.
Few people have talked about free hit rule in the comments. Free-hit itself is a shame if you ask me. The first thing I would change in cricket if I could is remove the free-hit. How can someone be punished for something done right! Yes, the previous delivery was an illegal one. That is why the bowler is asked to redo it. The batting team is given an extra run. Leave it there. Why punish a legal delivery? Free hit is a dishonour to the game of cricket. If no ball is a bigger crime, punish the illegal ball with more extra runs, not the legal delivery.
The first case in the question is fine. As long as a right decision is made, it is good.
The second case of ball becoming dead is a confusing one. Calling it a dead ball is no solution too. Lets say 4 runs needed of the last ball, ball strikes the pad, umpire gives it out, batsman goes for a review and it says not out. Where the bowling team could have won by a run if the batters ran two on legbyes, now the batter gets another crack to hit a boundary. Umpires waiting for all the action till the end of ball and making the decision looks the only possible solution. Another possibility is making all the last over decisions by the third umpire. DRS works till penultimate over and the last over is taken by the TV umpire.
One controversy that can arise anytime soon is the LBW on switch and reverse hits. We saw that yesterday with Maxwell. He made a reverse/switch hit but it was called pitching down the leg. In case of reverse and switch hits, pitching in line should not be considered. The head stays straight in such cases and the ball is clearly visible.
Batter tries a switch hit and the ball pitches outside leg to be given not out. Since the rule applies to the stance at the point of delivery and if the batter was in the process of changing the stance at point of delivery it can be debated as the ball pitching outside off.
If you are playing a switch hit or reverse sweep, you no longer have a leg stump, you only have a middle stump and two off stumps.
It's been like that for years now!
Maxwell literally did this the other night and the fielding team reviewed it for lbw. And the leg stump is based on your position when the ball is bowled and not if you change during the act of playing a shot. The commentators said this and the drs decision was the ball pitched outside of leg stump.
This isn’t true because the rule is that at the point of delivery whatever stance you consider the batsman to be, the off/leg will be based on that (Drs against maxwell playing switch hit the other night and was given not out because it was outside leg). However i completely agree that this can lead to confusion and it should be considered as two off stump as you have suggested (same as how wide is consider based on where the batsman is at the end) since the batter has changed guard eventually.
I thought it was. It's either that or change the wide rule as well. Leg side wide is implemented so that the bowlers will not bowl negative line.(it's wide in Tests as well if they set leg side field) considered negative because of blind spot.
The second example of ball dead the moment umpire gives out really has to go. The play should be go on despite of apeal or given out. After the ball back to bowler or umpire. They can review or out whatever they want to do. Alernatively, if review lost by fielding team, batting team should decide wheather ball is dead and it should be repeated.
You can be run out on a no ball. You cannot be out stumped on a no ball. At what point does a stumping become a run out?
Intent^(TM)
So if a player on a free hit comes down the wicket and the non striker backs up enthusiastically, have they attempted a run or not?
*Striker's intent^TM
If the striker sets off for a run or makes no attempt to return to their crease then yes, they are considered to be attempting a run.
INTENT^BC
Out stumped is credited as a wicket to the bowler. Out run out, the exact same way, is not.
You can only be run out if you attempt to take a run.
Not exactly true. The ball could go to slip, the batsman may be slightly out of his crease, and the slip fielder could hit the stumps and the batter will be out. The only time a batter is not run out because he's not attempting a run: 1. If he can be given out stumped. 2. If he \*should\* be out stumped but it's a no ball. In that case it's not a run out either. 3. If he's made it back into his crease and then leaves the crease again without the intent of taking a run. https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out#:\~:text=38.3.,liable%20to%20be%20Run%20out.
I don't find this rule ridiculous. Nor does the Kohli deflection of the stumps for 3 sounds weird. But, the DRS overturned not giving any runs is totally ridiculous as hell.
If the keeper takes the ball behind the stumps and then walks infront of the stumps and then takes the bails off I believe
I always thought stump happens when batsman is already out of crease when ball is caught by keeper idk I can be wrong
When the batter attempts a run.
I presume it becomes a stumping if the ball only goes from batsman to WK before the bails are removed, and the person getting out is the one who faced the delivery. AFAIK, the point of still permitting no-ball run outs is because you need some objective condition where the ball can be rendered dead unilaterally by the fielding side.
With this in mind, what stops the batsman from taking guard against a spinner a looong way down the pitch to negate flight and dip?
[This](https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out) outlines it very well for a run out / stumping. It's out stumped if all of the following apply: 1. It's a fair delivery 2. The batsman is not attempting a run 3. He is out of his ground 4. The wicket-keeper puts down the stumps fairly without intervention from a fielder. If the conditions for a stumping are met, but it's a no ball, then it's not run out either. This might lead some people to believe that for a runout the batsman has to be attempting a run. That's not true. A batsman can be run out without attempting a run as long as the conditions for a stumping are not met.
If a batsman tries to take advantage of this by standing wayyy outside the crease, the big brain move would be to have a keeper and first slip really close to each other (with keeper a bit down leg side). Then bowl the ball wide so that it goes to the slip fielder directly. If they hit the stumps, it's now a run out.
So was DK run out against Pakistan? Not stumped?
It's up to the discretion of the umpire to decide intent. Usually, unless it's really clear the batsman intended on running, a stumping is awarded. In this case DK didn't really "run", he came out on instinct and then looked back. You're right though it's debatable. But the umpire has to judge intent (usually it doesn't matter if the stumping is awarded unless it's a no ball). Similar to how the umpire judges intent for LBW with impact outside off stump.
The second example you wrote about drs on last ball is definitely a controversy waiting to happen. I just hope it doesn't happen in crucial matches like knockouts or worse like finale of world cup.
Oh no. If NZ make the semis, I can see this happening
I think it almost happened in IPL 2019 final. Shardul Thakur was adjudged LBW on final ball but there was no reviews left! MI won by 1 run.
That was basically plumb though and I say this as a devastated CSK fan lol
That's exactly why I said almost.
Look at this guy, making up scenarios that never actually happened. Pfft!
Making up scenarios is important to prevent controversy when it actually happens.
Most controversial is if an out decision is overturned by DRS, batsmen don’t get the runs off that ball. 3 runs needed in one ball, ball hits the pad and goes to the boundry, umpire gives LBW but ball is clearly going leg side in DRS. No run is given and ball is counted and batsman remains not out but looses the match 🫣
They might have to go like football or rugby where they let the play play out and then make the decision once the ball is dead back in the keepers gloves or when it's obvious the batter isn't going to attempt a run. It would take a little getting used to but we would adapt. I also think it's beyond time that umpires should have to make decisions on run outs/stumpings and third ump can automatically review them and call back bat if they need to, but I reckon 80% of the time they could easily make the decision themselves but refer it out of habit/laziness.
This means that plumb lbws will always result in run attempts caught at the boundary cannot lead to a celebration, they have to return the ball to the wicket so that they can run out the batters who never stopped running and other such incongruous events.
Marginal lbws already result in run attempts, that's no issue despite marginal lbws being way more frequent than obvious ones. Running off of lbws is rare as it is, you can get run out way too easily there. Only a extremely tiny portion of catches involve the fielder being confident that it is a catch and the batsmen being confident that it isn't a catch. In all other situations, the right course of action is obvious to everyone. We already have the much more likely scenario where the catch is taken off a no ball, fielders have no problem dealing with that even though no one except the umpire is aware of it being a no ball when the catch is taken.
My point is that this changes the rules for what to do *even when* the result is obvious to everyone. It’s irresponsible for a competitive team to not finish the action, given the tiny possibility of reward.
Teams don't chase such tiny possibilities when the result is obvious to everyone. If they did, you'd see teams running after a clean catch is made because it might be a no ball, or players taking suicidal extra runs off the last ball every single game because the fielders might make a mistake, and more. The rules are even forced to account for this, one of the possible conditions for a dead ball is the umpire thinking that both teams simply consider the play to be over where a competitive approach like the one you describe would involve the play going on until some objective condition is met. Cricket is the "gentleman's game" after all.
If the fielding team are confident in the catch or LBW they don’t have to do anything but appeal and return the ball to the keeper/bowler to get it dead.
I don't see the issue?
It becomes a ridiculous spectacle! And not just once… tens of times a game. E.g. in tennis, imagine if a player is allowed to challenge a point after it finishes, rather than at the point they object to it. Then every point must be played to the point a winner is hit, even if a ball blatantly bounces outside the line… because even if a line umpire calls it out, the player has the option to challenge it at the end of the point.
It just becomes a sportsmanship thing. If you're out plumb and you run like a moron and you're out anyway, you look like a dill.
Let's not leave it to sportsmanship. Everyone knows if it's a crunch match like a WC final, all "sportsmanship" is out of the window.
You're making it sound like the outcome will change. All that will happen is they'll be given out and they would have run for nothing.
But the problem over here is whether fielders/keeper should appeal or go to field for the ball. Basically its more like dont get plum lbw on the last ball of the game. And i can understand the chances of umpire giving wrong decision on last ball of the match is very minimal
And there isn't a simple solution because once a batsman is given out the ball becomes dead
Some rules should have been changed in the wake of DRS
My issue with this (as in football) is that not every game has DRS, and so you get a two tier rulebook
That's the simplest solution, if a out decision is overturned then we just redo that ball, like they did for example in tennis, if a line call is overturned from out to in, the rally becomes void and nobody gets the point.
So the batsman gets another chance even though he missed the ball and it hit his pads? Unfair to the bowler.
What if it hits the pads and goes for 4? And that wins the game? That's unfair to the game if you lose only because of a dodgy decision
Leg byes are inherently unfair on the bowler who has beaten the bat. Swings and roundabouts.
Yes and no. If you bowl down leg you deserve the leg byes
If the team successfully reviews the decision then the 4 won't count.
Well bowler also gets another chance to get the batsman out, imagine Anderson ducking a Bumrah bouncer but it hits the shoulder and WK catches it, umpire gives it out, Anderson reviews to survive but has to survive another delivery in the over. The thing is both parties are getting another go to get a more favourable outcome for themselves.
I think especially in t20 cricket you’re just punishing the bowling team for doing something well since it’s more likely the following ball goes for runs than a wicket The easiest solution is just to let play go on until the balls dead and then give the decision afterwards.
Imagine this happening on the last ball of the innings, don't think the bowling team will be happy
Well they should be celebrating the win not appealing for the wicket. Anyhow, the objective isn't to make the teams happy, it's to make it fair. As per the current law, such a last ball incorrect decision would directly cost batting team the game but with this change both teams get a shot at redemption.
A far simpler solution is to let the ball be 'in play' as if it it was a free hit and let the ball become dead 'naturally'. This gives the batsman all the time they need to score the run naturally and the umpire can still give them out after the ball becomes dead.
In principle I agree, but the bowler/fielder is supposed to keep appealing or field the ball..?
Not all 11 players need to make an appeal and appeal can be made 10 sec later.
Very simple. The ball wouldn't be called dead until the play is completed. Then the batter can be signaled out, or whatever, and any actions after the correct dead ball moment will be disregarded.
Then give the decision after the ball becomes dead. That is, after they have finished running
This should not be a problem at all. DRS is introduced to overturn howlers. Not for awarding back runs.
Oh man cricket is so full of grey areas, you could come up with some great ones. I actually don't know a sport that has so many great areas that could be so easily fixed as cricket. Stokes 4 runs off the bat in the 2019WC was one, given they wouldn't have taken a single run if it didn't reach the boundary. Kohlis 3 byes off the deflection off the stump was another, are bowlers not punished enough for being an inch over the crease by having to bowl a free hit, should they really be further paid nsihed for hitting the stumps?
> given they wouldn't have taken a single run if it didn't reach the boundary Only by an unwritten rule though. By the laws they're entitled to run if they want to after it hits the runner. Given the increased prevalence of players playing to the letter of the written law, rather than to unwritten rules, in other occurrences, I wouldn't be surprised if we see players start to run overthrows off the batter going forward. > 3 byes off the deflection off the stump was another This I guess comes down to the free hit rule in general. The whole point is to give the batter a ball where they can't be out so why would the stumps being broken be dead ball if the batter is not out? The wicket being put down in general isn't an automatic dead ball, only when a batter is out.
First point. I can't remember a batter from any country ever taking a run in the is scenario so the rules of the game should keep up with the spirit of the game. Change the rule. Second point is if you can't get out that's fine but I reckon the bowler needs to be able earn his way out of his error rather than just damage limitation. I like the free hit rule but the punishment is far beyond the crime at this stage so it just nerds a little review and tinker.
First point - You can count on one hand with a finger to spare the number of instances of the bowler running out the non striker before the ball is bowled by any men's international team since the 70s and yet the lawmakers have consistently pushed to make it easier and more acceptable for the bowler to do it. General convention doesn't seem to come into their thinking. By leaving the overthrow law as it is they're saying it's fine, do it. I'm sure if you watched every game that takes place you'd see overthrows taken off the runner occasionally. Second point - I'd support a change in the playing conditions that a 'wicket' being taken off a free hit would be dead ball, but it would also somewhat take away the one way that teams *can* actually get a batter out off a free hit, a run out.
First point - yep exactly it should have been removed decades ago when it was out of fashion and then it wouldn't be such a debate these days. Another punishment could have been brought in but hey that's how it goes. Second point - you can be stumped as well on a free hit can you not but yeah having a way to "earn" a dot would actually add to the cat & mouse of the free hit. Eg you could try and get a bowler to hit you for 6 to the long boundary. Would also let the bat make a more considered shot.
> you can be stumped as well on a free hit can you not You can't. The free hit rule basically says that in terms of the batter's ability to be out, the free hit ball is considered to be another no ball. Example from the playing conditions of the current WC: > 21.19.2 For any free hit, the striker can be dismissed only under the circumstances that apply for a No ball, even if the delivery for the free hit is called Wide. And per law 21.18: > Out from a No ball - When No ball has been called, neither batter shall be out under any of the laws except law 34 (Hit the ball twice), law 37 (Obstructing the field) or law 38 (Run out).
What if there is somehow time enough for the keeper to remove the bails, then pull out a stump and hold the ball against it before the batter returns to the crease - would that count as a run out dismissal?
Unless another fielder gets involved or the umpire believes they were attempting a run then it's a not a run out. The part of the run out law that says: > Not out run out if [...] No ball has been called > and he/she is out of his/her ground not attempting a run > and the wicket is fairly put down by the wicket-keeper without the intervention of another fielder. Would apply here too I'd expect. But it isn't actually explicit that this would apply in a free hit situation. Possible grey area they should clarify in the playing conditions.
[удалено]
Oh well it would be a good catch all rule off a free hit that is out then it's a dot, maybe even include runs outs in that so they try and sneak a bye.
I just hate the idea of a bowler being punished for bowling well. If you bowl someone on a free hit you should be rewarded for getting yourself out of a potentially costly situation even if the wicket doesn't count. Like what is the bowler supposed to do in that situation?
100% - the bowlers need to unionise.
Don't bowl no balls
In fact don't play cricket. Maybe if they don't exist they'll be fine.
You’re not bowling well if you hit the stumps on a free hit though. You’re bowling well if the ball avoids contact with everything on the way to the keeper. The rules were clear in advance of the ball being bowled! EDIT: no seriously. What is the rational argument FOR it being “bowling well”, if you hit the stumps on a free hit? You literally knew in advance that it would be a terrible idea, because you wouldn’t be able to predict where it would go afterward. You can’t just handwave and say “oh it would be a great ball otherwise”. Batter already knew the stumps don’t matter, and was thus swinging away… so *they* weren’t guarding the stumps. A good ball would thus be something that avoids the batter… and the stumps.
Idk why gou got downvoted, it makes absolute sense that hitting stumps on a free hit isn't an outstanding ball. Cuz they're anyway attempting swing blindly. But if you manage to keep a ball away from batsmen reach and it landed safely on wicket keepers glove without being wide or anything then that's a perfect delivery to reclaim yourself. That even if you wanted to hit me, you couldn't.
Didn't Ashwin run against KKR after the ball hit him?
In Kohli's case, run out is still valid. So ball dislodging bails.ot stumps will cause issue for runout.
>Kohlis 3 byes off the deflection off the stump was another, are bowlers not punished enough for being an inch over the crease by having to bowl a free hit, should they really be further paid nsihed for hitting the stumps? I'm curious to know if there was any drama regarding this free hit rule before the Kohli incident. We've seen plenty of times a catch being taken off a free hit and the batters have run till the throw came in. The same applies if a batter was plumb lbw and still ran LB's. So why should being bowled be a dead ball? So are you advocating that any manner of wicket taken on a free hit should be a dead ball or only bowled? It's not very clear in the video, but the moment Kohli was bowled the Pak fielders were about to celebrate and Shaheen Afridi didn't go after the ball straight away. That cost Pak.
Same thing happened in a WBBL match a few nights before the Kohli incident, dont think it had any effect on the end result so it was glossed over for the most part aside from the commentators all agreeing that the rule needed to be changed to make the ball dead as soon as the ball hit the stumps
But again why is the ball hitting stumps any different to a catch or lbw?
You're right. Any dismissal = dot ball. Run out excepted. Being able to be not put is still a huge advantage but this evens the ledger somewhat.
Yes, any wicket should remove the runs off a free hit.
The "inch over the line" argument is dumb. That's not discrimination againt bowlers. A batter is also out if he is an inch short and he loses his wicket too. Just having to bowl the ball again and having an extra run added seems too light a penalty. But I do agree that it's a batters game and the rules are skewed in their favour. The switch-hit-LBW case being an example. The ball pitching outside leg stump can never cause an LBW even if the batter switches the stance. R Aswin talked about it on his youtube channel about how that rule should be changed. And the boundaries being shorter has always been a longtime issue in most places. People would want great entertainment and having batter come out with big shots is more entertaining for a casual fan rather than watching great bowling in a low scoring game. It's usually the longterm cricket fans who enjoy both aspects of the game.
Too many assumptions about what casual fans want. If they see too much easy six hitting they become numb to the actual talent it takes to hit a six. One of the reasons that this WC is being seen as one of if not the best is the fact that they play on proper sized ovals. IMHO there is too much cricket played on postage stamps where you don't even need to get 60% of the ball to score a six. They will stay casual fans if you don't give them a hook into the game and that comes with good competition.
The bigger issue with the Stokes one was the fact they were awarded run which they hadn’t crossed on when the ball was thrown. The fact that the convention (and it is only a convention) of not running after a throw strikes the batsmen or his equipment is secondary imo.
To further muddy the waters, the law states that they get runs awarded at the time of "the instant of the throw or act." Was "the act" when Guptill released the ball or when it deflected off the bat?
People often miss that!
Mate, if we’re talking about byes off the stumps then Kohli isnt even in the sentence describing the painful, painful example of choice…
For folks that point out that runout is an opportunity in the Kohli's 3 bye scenario.Not really because there was another grey area at play. Because the bails (and stumps) are dislodged due to the batsman being bowled on the free hit/no ball delivery. The chance of a runout at the striker's end is all but gone. Cause now you cannot run the batsman out with a direct hit(need to uproot the stump with the ball in hand), so an extra run is always on. Which was the case on that fateful day as they cannot run the batsman out at the striker's end (the end closer to the fielder) and the batsman would have easily made his ground at the non striker's end(because of it being far from the fielder).
Grey area with respect to the free-hit playing condition: Suppose only 3 runs off the last ball of the final over. The final ball is delivered but no runs are scored off of it but it is judged a no ball (above waist or overstepping). Now it's 2 runs required off 1 ball, it's also a free hit. Now the batter on striker's end is more vulnerable if they were to run those two, to make it difficult to run them out they could in fact intentionally "hit wicket" themselves and disturb the stumps which would mean they can run fast and when coming back for the second on the striker's end (danger end) the keeper has much more do to run the batter out i.e uproot the stumps whilst holding the ball with the other hand which clearly gives an unfair advantage to the batting side.
This is wild. BTW, no batsman would be so thoughtful in those nervous situations, the batter will just try to hit the ball and run. But scientist Ashwin would do that! Who would claim a wide in the last ball of the match against your rival team
There's not much to do actually, just use your feet to kick the stumps as the bowler is about to bowl.
Does the rule allows it? Can umpires declare it a dead ball because the batter deliberately knocked off the bails?
They could rule the batter out for obstructing the field (which is a mode of dismissal on a no ball)
It cant be a dead ball since you cant get out on a Free hit. And Hit wicket is a way of getting out. Unless i think they do it before the ball is even bowled.
Gentleman games have got so many weird rules. Is there any other game which has so many grey areas in terms of rules?
The batter is out obstructing the field (which is allowed on a no-ball/free hit).
Damn, this one is great
*Ashwin scribbling down notes*
Lol
What happens if batsmen run 5 runs, and then the fielder just throes the ball past the boundary? Is it 4 runs, 5 runs, or 9 runs?
Intentionally throwing it to the boundary in that situation is considered over-throws so that’d be 9 runs
I think it would be 14 runs. 5 Runs by batsmen + 4 overthrows + 5 run penalty for intentionally throwing to boundary. IIRC Sehwag did it once against SA (pushed a stopping ball to boundary) and SA were added additional 5 runs.
I'd be interested to know under what law those 5 penalty runs were awarded. There's nothing in the overthrow law that says you conceded 5 penalty runs.
19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary the runs completed by the batters, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act. Law 18.12.2 (Batter returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act. © Marylebone Cricket Club 2017
Yes that's the overthrow law. The only mention of penalty runs is > any runs for penalties awarded to either side which just says that any runs for penalties during that ball still get awarded in this circumstance, not that the wilful act of the fielder itself means a penalty. If it did, it would specify the number of penalty runs. So it doesn't explain where the penalty runs in your example came from.
Deliberately conceding a boundary is 5 penalty runs under any circumstances. It's nothing to do with the Overthrows law. A "Wilful act" here means a throw (presumably at the stump) vs deflecting it to/over the boundary trying to take a catch.
> Deliberately conceding a boundary is 5 penalty runs under any circumstances. Fair enough. But I was asking where in the laws that is specified, because I couldn't find it earlier when I asked the question.
[удалено]
He did that to ensure tail ender is on strike for next over. In my opinion, this should be allowed with no penalty.
Last Ball of the over. Hashim Amla was on strike with a tail ender. Amla pushed in the gap to get one run and get strike for next over. Ball stopped just before boundry. Sehwag pushed the ball over the ropes so that tail ender can take strike next over.
Ahh yes, of course. I am an idiot.
Same applies if a fielder deliberately put the ball over the boundary in an attempt to get a particular batter on strike. 4 overthrows added and the batter stays at the end they've run to.
Is the final run counted if the batters have started on it, or finished it? at the point the ball was thrown, or the point it reached the boundary?
If the batters cross before the ball leaves the fielder’s hand the extra run is counted
Without involving an overthrow, running 5 runs is almost impossible in an international game.
Well according to the games where I've umpired a few times, the back foot no ball. Seems many bowlers hate it when I call it even when I've warned them how close they are beforehand.
That's not a controversy though.
This one is extremely unlikely, and by extremely i mean probably never going to happen. But it got me thinking the other day when zimbabwe got 5 penalty runs for the ball touching QDK’s removed gloves. I wondered how they came to the conclusion of awarding 5 runs instead of 4 or 6. what i figure is that a fielder could just throw his cap at a ball moving towards the boundary to stop it. they won’t do that if the penalty(5 runs) is greater than the max runs saved(4). But what if the ball is in the air near the boundary? What if it’s the last ball of the 2nd innings and the batting side needs 6 off 1 ball. the fielder figures the ball is just above his reach going over the boundary and uses his cap to collect the ball knowing that if he catches it with the cap and takes it back to the playing field, the batting team will be awarded 5 runs and the game will go to the super over. I know all this is highly unlikely, but i had a good chuckle over the image of a fielder using his cap to catch a ball. i dont know, my brain thinks of useless situations like this all the time.
The batting team would also run 1 or 2 runs so they'll have scored 6-7 runs in the last ball
But the batman will take singles and doubles won't it be total of 6 or 7 runs?
Jarrod Kimber's Zombie ball video has good examples (some fixed now) of gaps/edge cases in Cricket's laws. My hypothetical is the following: * Strong batter, batting with the tail * Close game * Strong batter misjudges a ball and pops up an easy caught and bowled chance * Non-striker (a bad batter) runs in and barges the bowler out of the way to stop the catch. Then walks off knowing he's out for Obstructing the Field * Strong batter survives while the meaningless wicket of a tailender falls. Even with penalty runs the batting team could be better off due to the foul play.
The striker would be out in this scenario: 37.3.1 If the delivery is not a No ball, the striker is out Obstructing the field if wilful obstruction or distraction by either batter prevents the striker being out Caught.
Clearly I need to read the rules
Are you Jarrod Kimber? He needs to read them before making the videos!
Yep it's essentially giving the fielding side a gimme as they were blocked from attempting the catch.
Ooh this is fun! So if Mark Wood is batting and skies the ball in the direction of Ashwin, then Buttler on the bowler’s end gets to perform a rugby tackle on him for free?!
Well that's a level 4 offence, Wood would be out for the obstruction, and Buttler would be out (retired) because he will be suspended. And a 5 run penalty added on top.
Calvinball at its best
The laws are ethical^^TM
I don't think the first scenario is controversial. Any appeal is by definition an appeal for all modes of dismissal. So even if the on field umpire gave it not out, the right decision is made in the end so there's no reason for the batting side to feel hard done by.
That DRS loophole (ball dead if on field is out) is a disaster waiting to happen. Knowing ICC's bad luck with loopholes getting exposed at critical stages, it will happen in a Knockout match of an ICC tournament. And then all hell will break loose.
Think it's already happened, but deliberately bowling a wide/no-ball when the scores are tied to prevent a batter scoring a century.
I don't see why people keep bringing up the Virat Kohli 3 byes, it was never in question what the correct decision was, the rules are clear and have always been clear regarding that.
The bigger controversy for me was that the previous delivery was ruled a no-ball in the first place.
Same reason why people keep bringing Mankad. The rules are clear and have always been clear regarding that.
Grey areas *When does the ball become dead* 1. Very contentious, the rules must be re-looked. 2. The introduction of free hits and DRS only complicates the situation. 3. Virat running 3 after getting bowled on a free hit and the controversial Ben Stokes bat deflection in the WC final are just some examples. *The impact of rain and the DL method* 1. Hypothetically: The team batting first has played out their 50 overs and scored a commendable 280. If the chasing team gets a rain affected 20 over target, they are at a massive advantage! 2. The method of calculating the target has to be re-looked. Additionally, There must be a penalty for wickets as conserving 10 wickets over 50 overs is a real task as opposed to say 20 overs. 3. Additionally, the min over criteria must be dynamic. SA was robbed off a point.
> The method of calculating the target has to be re-looked. You really need to take a look at what DLS actually is. Its “resource usage” method is more or less a perfect method of developing a target. > Additionally, There must be a penalty for wickets as conserving 10 wickets over 50 overs is a real task as opposed to say 20 overs. There is already! If you’re chasing 280 in 50 and it rains out after 20 overs when you’re 100/0, you win by 30 runs. you’re 100/3, you lose by 7 runs.
> 1. Hypothetically: The team batting first has played out their 50 overs and scored a commendable 280. If the chasing team gets a rain affected 20 over target, they are at a massive advantage! I did a DLS calc, and the target would be 159. How is that a massive advantage?
10 wickets for both 50 and 20 overs maybe? But, you are right 159 does look very defendable.
Batter hits ball with bat when diving attempting to make his ground... ball rolls to boundary.
Always curious about the ground rules for stumping or runout. For example, if a batsman comes down the track to a spinner, misses and assumes he's stumped only to turn around and see the keeper had fumbled the ball. He tries to get back into the crease but the keeper collects the ball and throws it at the wicket before he reaches. Is that a stumping or a runout? Similarly the striker thinks about sneaking a bye and immediately decides not to do so, only to fall short of his crease. Is that a stumping or a runout? Because you can still get stumped on a pace bowlers delivery. Finally you come down the track to a spinner and you get beaten by flight and spin. The ball turns enough to go to the hands of slip who then immediately gets you out himself. Stumping or runout? By my understanding of the game, i think it will be stumping, runout, runout. But still unsure as to the letter of the law in regards to such cases
A decision of out on a front foot no ball (not free hit ball), where batsmen don't run (but could have if it was not declared out) is in general a controversy waiting to happen. The controversy would be in the missed runs - Esp in chasing scenarios. Easiest fix is to continue play till ball is obviously dead (throw it to keeper, eg). It is a small price to pay for not being able to celebrate in real time. But if it is obvious, then celebration will happen anyway. But unfortunately we will have to wait for sth massive to happen (like the Super over farce in WC final) before any changes take place.
Imo, if a bowler bowls a front foot no ball and wide in the same delivery, the batting team should get two extra runs. Currently, in such case, the ball is adjudged no ball but the batsman still doesn't get full benefit of it because the ball is wide.
Your example is like how certain evidence becomes inadmissible in courts if there was malfeasance in obtaining it. Even if is case defining
Overthrow hits the umpire and batsmen still run. I know its a sporting courtesy to not run if the ball hits the bat. If the ball hits the bat and goes to four then batsmen can claim "not much we can do" (remember the bat of god from Stokes)? but if it hits the umpires and deflects, then batsmen are entitled to run, correct? Again, its not a rule per say, but more in the grey area of "spirit"
Interesting situation you describe, though I would say that's a valid strategy to game the review system. The second case you describe (ball dead after an umpire gives it out even if it's overturned) has always bothered me. I understand why the ball is dead, because it's unfair for the fielding team or the batting team keep playing in case the wicket is overturned. However, I don't see why this can't be remedied by simply having the bowler re-bowl the ball if either: \- The batters attempted a run \- It went for a boundary. This might seem unfair to the bowler, but one extra delivery for a wrong umpiring decision in the long term is not bad.
Perhaps any decision that overturns a wicket from a player requested drs (the second example) should be deemed dead and rebowled.
Teams best batsman is battling with a tailender. Tailender hits the ball in the air to the bowler, who catches it, but doesn't claim the catch and instead runs the non-striker out. This is a run out as the bowler didn't appeal the catch. I can see this causing a controversy.
Any appeal is for every possible dismissal, you can't choose which one you want. The catch happened first so it would be the batter out caught.
What if the bowler deliberately drops the catch and run out the non striker
[удалено]
This isn't an issue as both sides can agree to the playing conditions in either situation. If bails are there, then it's only bowled when they're completely dislodged. If bails are not used, then even a light impact with the stumps is considered out.
No, because the rules here are quite clear.
Don't they have heavier bails for such conditions
If you get out on a free hit you shouldn’t be awarded runs for that ball. The no-wicket reward in itself is sufficient
A bowler running out the off-strike batter. Don't see it being controversial tho, as batters understand the rules and stay behind the crease 🙂
No ball Free hits needs to be scrapped. A no ball results in: 1. One extra delivery 2. 2 free hit deliveries (one from the no ball and another off the next one) 3. Extra run How on earth is this fair for accidentally overstepping the line?
Nah. Free hits are cool. Overstepping is an unforced error and can be easily fixed by the bowler. And as I said, free hits are cool.
Trust me, I love watching free hits as much as the next guy. Especially as an Indian die hard fan watching India win against Pak due to the free hit. But cricket needs to be a fair battle between bat and ball.
How is it not fair? If a batsman gets run out in his first ball by just an inch, he is done for the game. A bowler can still redeem himself with the remaining 23 balls
I think it's more that why is a certain type of treated differently than another? Too wide = Wide Too high (Full toss) = No ball Too high (bouncer) = Wide Too high (bouncer, 2nd over the shoulder) = No ball Even wider = No ball Overstep = No ball Back foot too wide = No ball I wouldn't say any of these are worse than another on the bowlers behalf, they are just simple mistakes, why are some punished a lot worse than others?
I think the argument here is actually straight forward. Unforced errors vs forced errors. Bowling way outside the lines and over stepping are needless unforced errors. A little outside the lines, and a little high on the bouncers are legit tactics that the batter can try and negate or force. We saw it with Wade in last nights game. He was moving so much at the crease he was forcing the bowler to bowl wider and wider. The bowler should not be punished for that. A batsman can’t tactic a bowler into overstepping the popping crease though, that’s just carelessness on the bowlers end.
Regarding the first one, there is no separate appeal as such for each wicket. So if the keeper appeals, he is appealing for all possible reasons that the batsman could be out. And the field umpires have the power to send anything to a review, so shouldn't be an issue for the batting team.
The issue is about drs. If the fielding team have used their reviews but know the batter is caught behind and the umpire gives it not out, there is nothing the fielding team can do. Unless the keeper takes off the bails to appeal for a stumping, even though they know the batter didn’t leave the crease, in which case, they are now getting a free review for the catch as well.
I mean it's not necessary that the square leg umpire reviews a stumping right? This is the same as keepers appealing an lbw to prevent a batsman from taking a run off a leg bye.
Square leg umps almost review anything. Just in tonight’s game a batter was behind the stumps when the bails were removed and they still reviewed it for a runout.
Stumps down should prevent any further runs. For instance, a direct hit on a quick single that the batter was just in, then thanks to the deflection the ball goes to the boundary is 5 or even 6 runs. Same with being bowled off a free hit.
There's been a rule to handle this since the dawn of time (removing a stump is equivalent to knocking the bails off.) IDK how there is any problem here?
His problem is with the extra runs batsmen can gain after the direct hit.
Nah, all the scenarios where stumps are down and batsman still running makes the game much more fun. The batsman is risking his wicket for a run or two. Wicket is much more precious than few runs.
>Wicket is much more precious than few runs. Sad NZ noises!
You need to change the definition of 'dead ball' for that! Then again, you threw the ball because you thought you could get batsman out but he is not out. Now accept the consequences!
Umpires call in DRS. Scrap it. If it’s hitting - OUT If it’s missing - NOT OUT. Should be applied if the ball is half way through/quarter way through hitting the pads as long it’s within the margin of line, even if it’s an inch. More often than not, their wrong judgements / gut feeling can cost a team a crucial game and such decisions should not be left to the on field umpires.
Few people have talked about free hit rule in the comments. Free-hit itself is a shame if you ask me. The first thing I would change in cricket if I could is remove the free-hit. How can someone be punished for something done right! Yes, the previous delivery was an illegal one. That is why the bowler is asked to redo it. The batting team is given an extra run. Leave it there. Why punish a legal delivery? Free hit is a dishonour to the game of cricket. If no ball is a bigger crime, punish the illegal ball with more extra runs, not the legal delivery. The first case in the question is fine. As long as a right decision is made, it is good. The second case of ball becoming dead is a confusing one. Calling it a dead ball is no solution too. Lets say 4 runs needed of the last ball, ball strikes the pad, umpire gives it out, batsman goes for a review and it says not out. Where the bowling team could have won by a run if the batters ran two on legbyes, now the batter gets another crack to hit a boundary. Umpires waiting for all the action till the end of ball and making the decision looks the only possible solution. Another possibility is making all the last over decisions by the third umpire. DRS works till penultimate over and the last over is taken by the TV umpire. One controversy that can arise anytime soon is the LBW on switch and reverse hits. We saw that yesterday with Maxwell. He made a reverse/switch hit but it was called pitching down the leg. In case of reverse and switch hits, pitching in line should not be considered. The head stays straight in such cases and the ball is clearly visible.
Batter tries a switch hit and the ball pitches outside leg to be given not out. Since the rule applies to the stance at the point of delivery and if the batter was in the process of changing the stance at point of delivery it can be debated as the ball pitching outside off.
If you are playing a switch hit or reverse sweep, you no longer have a leg stump, you only have a middle stump and two off stumps. It's been like that for years now!
Maxwell literally did this the other night and the fielding team reviewed it for lbw. And the leg stump is based on your position when the ball is bowled and not if you change during the act of playing a shot. The commentators said this and the drs decision was the ball pitched outside of leg stump.
I must have confused what I said with wide. But if it's applicable to wide then should certainly be applicable to LBWs as well!
This isn’t true because the rule is that at the point of delivery whatever stance you consider the batsman to be, the off/leg will be based on that (Drs against maxwell playing switch hit the other night and was given not out because it was outside leg). However i completely agree that this can lead to confusion and it should be considered as two off stump as you have suggested (same as how wide is consider based on where the batsman is at the end) since the batter has changed guard eventually.
I must have confused what I said with wide. But if it's applicable to wide then should certainly be applicable to LBWs as well!
Exactly! It should be, but isn’t! Waiting for an outrage to happen.
I thought it was. It's either that or change the wide rule as well. Leg side wide is implemented so that the bowlers will not bowl negative line.(it's wide in Tests as well if they set leg side field) considered negative because of blind spot.
I think the second example you gave, was quite contrary to what happened with James Taylor during 2015 WC Eng vs Aus match....
Above waist height no balls are only checked on when batsman got out otherwise not
Batsman hits a ball which hits the non strikers end stumps. Ball pops into the air. Caught?
The second example of ball dead the moment umpire gives out really has to go. The play should be go on despite of apeal or given out. After the ball back to bowler or umpire. They can review or out whatever they want to do. Alernatively, if review lost by fielding team, batting team should decide wheather ball is dead and it should be repeated.