Jan Hoffman asked:
With the introduction of TV reviews, the super slow motion, hotspot etc., the grey area of “benefit of the doubt” is getting smaller and the correct interpretation of the laws more important. In Sunday’s Pro20 match between South Africa & New Zealand Levi was almost run out. According to the commentators this was a 50/50 decision and could have gone either way. I’m not so sure because it all depends on the interpretation of the laws.
Law 28 states that “The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps”.
I would like some clarity on the interpretation of the term “completely removed”. Does this occur when:
1. there’s daylight between the 1st bail and the 1st stump (The 1st bail starts to move).
2. the bail leaves the 2nd stump (There’s no more contact between 1st bail and any of the stumps)
3. the 1st bail is below the top part of the stumps.
4. The 1st bail hits the ground.
I believe it’s between 2 or 3 but can’t find any official clarification on the matter.
Thanks for the help.
"Completely removed" means that one bail is below the level of the top of the stumps (your nr 3)
They do consider the removal of the bail as the moment it leaves the groove; HOWEVER, if the bail subsequently is NOT "completely removed", then the temporary removal of the bail will be considered never to have happened.
Leonard Mushangwe asked:
there was a batting ''punishment'' years back where the bowler had to throw a very slow ball(under-arm) am no longer sure of the name,why was it being done and what was the name of such a bowling style.
To our knowledge, this has not happened in 1st class cricket. Must have been a lower level.
If the striker(right handed)moves across such that the delivery he''s facing goes behind him but just over/in line with leg stump,will the ball b e declared wide because it is behind the batsman or dot ball on the basis of its line
The main parts of the Wide Ball Law (Law 25) is that any movement of the striker cannot cause the ball to be called wide, and if the ball is sufficient within his reach for the striker to hit the ball by means of a normal cricket shot, it cannot be called a wide.
In the end, it is in the opinion of the umpire, to call it a wide or not.
Just remember, it depends in which competition it happens, and the playing conditions ruling what should be called a wide and what not.
Please explain how an umpires call nullifies the DRS when the ball is going to hit the stumps, and also please explain when an umpire''s call can be overruled by DRS.
In LBW: Half of the ball or more has to hit the stumps / be in line in order for the DRS's call to stand. If less than half of the ball is shown to have hit the stumps, the umpire's call will stand. (Ironically, this will happen whether the umpire have given the batsman "out" or "not out").
So it is a risky call for a team if they are not sure that the stumps would have been hit fully. They can lose a review in this way.
hi i was a kid back then so i remember it vaguely could you explain to me exactly what happened in the 92 world cup match when it was raining and south africas total stayed the same but the balls remaining got less
This brings back unhappy memories...
They introduced a new rain rule for that tournament; the idea behind the rule was to avoid the old system - work out the runs-per-over of the first innings and then deduct that for each over lost by the side batting second - which heavily disadvantaged the side batting first. The solution was that when rain interrupted the second innings of a match the reduction in the target was to be proportionate to the lowest scoring overs of the side batting first, a method that took into account the benefits of chasing, as opposed to setting, a target.
With five overs remaining, South Africa needed 47 to win, and that had been reduced to 22 from 13 balls when the rain, which had been falling for a few minutes, grew heavier.
SA wanted to carry on batting, England wanted to come off. The umpires took the players off the field.
Crucially, any time lost would result in overs being deducted, and under competition rules those would be the least productive for the side batting first. South Africa had bowled two maiden overs in England's innings, which meant that with 2.1 overs remaining any time lost would not result in a reduction in the target (because of the 2 maiden overs) but would mean South Africa had fewer balls in which to score the runs. Therefore SA got penalised by bowling well...
The rain soon stopped and the total time lost was 12 minutes. It was announced that one over had been deducted and so South Africa's new target was 22 off seven balls.
But, the announcement of the six-ball reduction was incorrect. However, the players trooped back to the middle unaware, like the crowd, that a second over had been deducted, and therefore only one ball remained.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the scheduled finish time was 10.10 pm. The scoreboard clock was displaying 10.08pm. What's more, the competition rules had allowed for a reserve day but the host broadcaster, Channel Nine, had insisted the match be finished on the scheduled day.
There you have it. A complete farce.
.Mike Winterton asked:
After yesterdays win against England SA are now #1 in the rankings? SA 120pts and England 117.Was there a possibility that if yesterdays game was drawn SA would of won the series but England would of retained #1 position virtue of a points difference? Thank You.
If the match was drawn, South Africa still would HAVE won the series, and therefore would HAVE replaced England at the top of the rankings by virtue of a few decimal points.
If a bowler bowls a batsman, with the free hit delivery, and the ball ricochets over the boundary - are 4 byes scored? CRAZY!
Yes, if there was no contact with bat/body of the batsman.
aldrin koester asked:
can u make the rule of a no ball clear please.
There are many different types of No balls... for fielding transgressions, the way the arm delivers the ball, dangerous bowling, what the ball does after it leaves the bowler's hand, of course the bowler's feet, as well as a few more conditions...
We'll deal with the feet issue, as this is the most common occurrence of a No ball in a normal day's cricket.
For the delivery to be fair in respect of the bowler's feet, the bowler's BACK foot must not touch the RETURN crease (that is the short line on either side of the batting crease, running parallel to the wicket) during his delivery stride. (the heel can be raised above the line).
His FRONT foot must land with some part of the foot (whether grounded or raised) behind the POPPING crease (that is the long line running across the wicket in front of the batting crease).
If the umpire is not happy that these conditions have been met, he will call No ball.
Any subsequent movement of the feet after they have landed is immaterial.
Bob Izzett asked:
Why are results for 20/20 and 50 over games given as "won by 5 wickets" for example.
The result has nothing to do with wickets - each team tries to score as many runs as fast as possible and sacrifice wickets in doing so. The team that scores the most runs wins - wickets do not come in to it. I mean a team can score 150 for 1 and be beaten by a team that scores 151 for 9 - so the result should be Team A won by 15 runs - scoring 140 to 135 by team B
Hmmm, now how do we tackle this one...
If that was the case, the team batting second would ALWAYS win by 1-6 runs, because they would of course only bat until they have passed the first score... (ie the team who scores the most runs). Otherwise, what would be the purpose of continuing batting when you've already passed the target?
How will the team batting second EVER win by 15 runs?? We would like an example here, please...
No, we think the current system is quite good...
Malcolm Maifala asked:
Exactly how does this 2 new balls from both ends work? and What happens when a batsman gets injured during the game, but he is not allowed a runner?
There are 2 new balls for each innings - the one gets used from the one end, and the other one from the other end. Therefore, each ball will be a maximum of 25 overs old by the end of the match.
Should a batsman need a runner, he unfortunately has to either continue batting in his current state, or retire. When he does, he cannot bat again, and it will be recorded as "retired - out".
When does a cricket teams squad get announced for a spesific test series. I play fantasy cricket and cant seem to find the announced team shortly an hour or two before taking the field. Resulting often in me for choosing non players in my fantasy game.
Is there no time limit for announcing a team before a Test series?
OK, your question is a bit confusing.... are you talking about a TEAM being announced before a test match, or a SQUAD being announced before a test series?
A TEAM only gets announced at the toss. The two captains take their team lists with them and exchange it after the toss.
It is very rare that an international team is known beforehand, and usually the media is under strict instructions not to release the teams (which are given to them prior to the toss in order to prepare their intros) before the toss has been announced.
These days, it is quite critical to keep the teams quiet, because of betting.
You just have to use your nous of the game to pick your fantasy teams - like everyone else :)
A SQUAD can be announced at any time the selectors are happy with their selections.
ALDRIN KOESTER asked:
HI THERE,CAN U EXPLAIN THE BACKFOOT NO BALL PLEASE
The bowler's back foot must land within and not touching the return crease, ie it can be raised above it, but cannot touch it.
The return creases are those at right angles to the popping crease marking the 2 sides of the actual pitch lengthwise.
Hope this is clear.
I have 2 questions:
First - Are runners still allowed in international cricket?
Second - If yes to question 1, then are runners still allowed for batsmen who suffer muscle cramps during their innings.
2009 - ICC champions trophy - Smith denied a runner.
2011 - Engalnd vs Australia 6th one day international - Trott awarded a runner.
Runners are not allowed in international cricket any longer.
When a batsman hits a ball into the air, and it doesn''t hit the ground, but hits part of his or a fielder''s body before being caught, is that still a legal catch? What body parts or gear would be deemed as a ''grounding''?
We assume you're talking about a catch on/over the boundary?
Any part of the fielder's body touching the ground will be regarded as grounded. If the ball is touched by this fielder (by ANY part of his body) at the same time as ANY part of his body is grounded, it will not be a legal catch.
The ball hitting part of the batsman's clothing or equipment will have no impact on the legality of the catch.
However, if the ball hits a helmet worn by a FILEDER, then it will not be a legal catch.
Please explain why hitting outside leg can never be given out ? Yet, on the offside, it doesn''t matter as long as the ball hits in line with the stumps.
That is part of the LBW Law. The moment the ball pitches outside the line of the leg stump, the Law states that the batsman should not be given out, no matter the perceived path of the ball thereafter. It's just one of those things :)
Albert Hattingh asked:
Run Out Rule.Should the fielder hit the umpire before hitting the stumps, would the run out still stand.
Yes, it will.
Jaco de Bruyn asked:
When a bowler bowls a ball, the ball hits a helmet that was put behind the keeper and then runs off over the boundary. What will the runs be if:
1. If it was hit by the batsmen
2. It was not touched by the batsmen
Five penalty runs will be given because it touched the helmet, but is the ball dead or does the 4 runs for crossing the boundary counts?
It will be 5 penalty runs (the 5th type pf Extras), whether the batsman hit it or not.
The moment the ball hits the helmet it will become dead - therefore the "boundary" will not be scored.
have some doubt about no ball, so want to clear. Situation is described below,
Over -1 Bowler-1 informed umpire side (Left arm-Around the wicket)---Bowled--- Over finished.
Over- 2 Bowler-2 informed umpire side (Right arm-Over the wicket)----Bowled---Over finished.
Over - 3 Bowler-1 AGAIN... First ball bowled, but this time he did not inform umpire about his bowling side which is (Left arm -Around the wicket)...... so will this be a NO BALL???
As long as a bowler sticks to his original method of bowling, he does not need to inform the umpire at the start of each over.
With India opting not to use the DRS, why did the umpire ask to check for the no ball when Dravid was bowled? Surely that is also a Decision being reviewed?
It remains the umpire's prerogative to check for no-balls. That is not part of the DRS.
DRS is only when the TEAM questions the umpire's decision and asks for it to be reviewed.
The umpires can still call on the 3rd umpire to assist with no-balls, run-out, catches etc.
may you please provide me with the formula/calculation of the duckworth and lewis method of deriving runs required.
That is a computerised process.
Conrad Strauss asked:
How many fielders are allowed to wear helmets simultaneously ? (I thought it was only 2, but saw 3 Proteas wearing helmets vs Sri Lanka. Was it always 3 ,or even more, or did the rule/s change ?)
It doesn't matter how many.
The only drawback is that the more helmets there are on the field, the more it counts against the fielding team in terms of possible penalty runs scored should a ball hit a helmet and catches being disallowed should the ball come off a helmet. So, safety aside, it doesn't really help a fielding side to have too many helmets in their midst.
Sakkie van Zyl asked:
In the last test between SA and Sri Lanka, Jacques Kallis edged a ball onto his legs and the ball came to rest at the top of his pads. He then took the ball from between his legs and passed it to one of the Sri Lankan players. The ball never touched the ground. Could they have appealed for a catch?
No, a catch cannot be claimed if the ball gets lodged in either batsman's clothing or equipment. Should the ball do so, it will become dead and nothing else can happen off that delivery.
Jacques Benatar asked:
Is hitting the ball twice not grounds for dissmisal? It just happened in the ODI at Paarl, no Proteas appealed. I remember as a kid we were told to kick the ball away from rolling onto the stumps, if the ball had already touched the bat.
Thank you, this is a great concept.
Players can only appeal for dismissal if the batsman tried to SCORE RUNS for that second hit. He is allowed to protect his wicket by hitting the ball a second time - by either kicking the ball away or hitting it.
Leon Grobler asked:
Striker hit ball in air touches bowlers hand and ball hits wicket at non strikers end. Non strikeris out of ground when wicket is hit. Ball deflectsfrom stumps and is caught by a fielder. Which batsman is out.
The run-out happens before the catch, therefore the non-striker will be out; the ball will become dead and the catch will not stand.
Is a bowler allowed to swap his\her bowling arm (from right to left) in the middel of a over? If not, is he allowed to swap it in the same match?
Yes, a bowler can change from being left-arm to right-arm or vice versa, but he/she has to notify the umpire of the change in the mode of delivery. (Law 24.1a)
The same happens when he changes from around to over the wicket.
If the bowler fails to notify the umpire, No ball will be called.
Keagan van aarde asked:
Hi i just want to now how is the batsmen going to take quick singelis if they can be run-out if they back up
This is a quid pro quo scenario.
Leaving your ground "too soon" in order to gain advantage in running a single, can be considered under the heading of "unfair running by the batsmen".
Though, there is no definition in the Laws of "too soon", and even if a batsman leaves his ground "too soon" he has committed no specific offence. The Law does not require a batsman to be in his ground at any particular time.
Therefore, the fielding side gets rewarded with the opportunity of being able to run the batsman out in this case.
The bowler is entitled, right up to entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run-out the non-striker.
A warning from the bowler on the first "offence" is courtesy, but not obligatory.
In order to get quick singles, the batsmen will have to speed up their running, if they don't want to risk being run-out :)
In a test match a few years ago Shahid Afridi of Pakistan did a pirouette on the pitch on a length during the drinks brea. Which law governs damaging the pitch and what exactly were the umpires expected to do to punish this behaviour?
Law 42, and in particular 42.11, 12, 13 & 14 - especially with regard to the "protected area".
If a fielder/bowler does this and the umpire is convinced that it was avoidable, he will call Dead ball and caution the captain of the fielding side. He will also inform the opposing captain and his umpiring colleague.
The next time it happens during that innings, 5 penalty runs will be awarded to the batting side and a lot more reporting will be done to Executives and Boards...
The same holds for a batsman damaging the pitch, apart from the fact that the 5 penalty runs will be awarded to the fielding side.
with regards to different modes of dismissal, what are the conditions that will allow the fielding team to appeal for a "timed out" dismissal? and has this happened before, if so, when?
A 'timed out' dismissal will nearly always involve a refusal of the batting team to continue with their innings.
It is very rare and has not happened yet in any international match.
The 1st instance in cricket was in 1919, when Sussex's Harold Heygate was timed out by the umpires. He was a war veteran with leg wounds he sustained during the war and also suffered badly from arthritis. First he was excused from fielding and then he was dismissed for 0 batting at no.11.
With their 2nd innings he was seen sitting in his suit next to the field, implying that he would take no further part. When the 9th wicket fell with the scores level, there was no sign of Heygate and when Somerset appealed, umpire Alfred Street (respected test umpire) ruled Heygate timed out, and the match finished as a tie.
Some say that he was seen with pads strapped over his suit trying to come out to bat, but to no avail.
In 1st Class Cricket since 1919, it has happened four times:
1. Andrew Jordaan - EP v Tvl (1987)
2. Hemulal Yadav - Tripura v Orissa (1997)
3. Vasbert Drakes - Bor v FS (2002)
4. AJ Harris - Notts v Durham (2003)
If a batsman walks thinking he has been bowled,because he missed and when he looked back saw his stumps uprooted.Should he get back to his team-mates and they indicate he is not out, can he return to the crease?
If he has left the playing field, he cannot return to it.
Chris du Plooy asked:
Please explain the rule on primary and high school levels for running out a batter when they "steal" during the bowlers run-up. We have had some ridiculous decisions by"umpires" in the last couple fo months. This varied between that the batter can not be ran out at all or that they can be ran out after an official warning (to the team or to each individual batter ).
We don't know what the specific playing conditions for schools are. If it can help, we have dealt with "stealing of runs" in another question on this page.
The Law states that the bowler is allowed to run-out a non-striker right up to entering his delivery stride.
Can u plz xplain Lbw
Okey, you (hopefully) already know that the ball cannot be a No ball, and the ball has to FIRST touch the striker's BODY.
Then, if the ball is not a full toss, it has to pitch between off stump and leg stump - unless the striker doesn't offer a shot, then it can pitch outside off stump.
But if it pitches outside leg stump, it should NEVER be given out.
Where did the ball hit the striker? It should be either between wicket & wicket, or - if he did not offer a shot - outside the line of off stump.
The final question is, would the ball have gone on to hit the stumps had it not struck the batsman?
If all of the above apply, and the umpire is convinced that the ball would have hit the stumps, the batsman will be given out.
Of course, there are lots of little nuances to this Law, especially with the introduction of Hawk Eye etc, but these are part of the playing conditions for that specific series/tournament, and not part of the pure Law.
SASI KUMAR asked:
how do they decide who will toss the coin in the icc t20 world cup 2012
Sri Lanka was the host country, therefore they were the home team. They will toss the coin, and the West Indies will call.
Nick Bingham asked:
A trivial question, but I was just wondering what would happen if the scores in a match were level and the batting team were 9 wickets down, the batsman gets stumped off a wide? I assume the team batting second wins, as they would go one run ahead, but normally batting second they would win by a certain number of wickets, so do they win by 0 wickets? Thanks a lot
The moment the Wide is bowled, that is the winning run and the match is over (and the ball is dead). The stumping will therefore not count as it happened outside of the match (and with a dead ball), and the batting team will win by 1 wicket.
Nice question :)
Darryn De Vos asked:
Hello can someone please tell me why does each side get to new balls in the 50 over format and when is the second ball available to take by the fielding side? Can someone please let me know.I will be so great full. Darryn De Vos
The limited overs ball discolours over the course of an innings - they have tried a compulsory ball change at 34 overs, but have now implemented two new balls per innings - one from each end (or as they put it, to be used in alternate overs).
Nayan Khadua asked:
This is the situation. A batsman goes down to play a sweep shot. He misses and he is hit on the forearm away from the gloves, plum in front of the stumps. Can he be given out LBW? The ball has done everything right for the umpire to say yes. As far as I know the LBW law covers all parts of the body except for the gloves. If the ball goes in to the air and is caught, that won''t be out.
The glove of the hand holding the bat is regarded as part of the bat.
Therefore, if he gets hit above the glove, he should be given out LBW in the scenario you proposed.
And, you're quite right, should the ball be caught, he won't be given out "caught".
I''ve one queston,the umpire''s find the playing surface in order for play,but after one over the bowler decided that it is to dangerous to bowl not the umpire but the bowler,how on earth is this possible for a bowler to overrule the umpire and he (umpire) just went along with it.After a long discussion with the umpire''s it was decided the match is a draw.But to our shock the Union decides to give opponents the win and by that they override a registered umpire''s decision.Due to this my team was relegated,can you please tell me whether this is correct or not.
We don't know if there are particular playing conditions that may override the Law for this specific competition, but, according to Law, the umpires are the SOLE judges of conditions.
Should one of the teams decide to stop playing, despite the umpires' call to continue, that will be deemed a forfeiture of the match, and the opposing team will be awarded with the match.
From the information given, the umpire in this case was not correct - however, his decision should have stood, nonetheless.
Unless, of course, as we stated before, the union has the authority to overrule according to playing conditions.
That may be the case in a competition where the umpires are inexperienced.
When a batsman is out caught in a pad/bat situation or bowled off his pads presumably the ball is considered as still being "live" aftere hitting the pad and going on to hitting the bat or the stumps. Why then, if the ball hits the pad and lets say it is not in line and therefore "not out", but it rolls towards the stumps, the batsman is entitled to kick it away thus preventing it from hitting the stumps. This is not considered as l.b.w. Why not ?
The LBW law states that only the first point of interception is to be considered.
Therefore, if the ball came off his pads (not in line), that is considered the first point of interception, and it will not matter what the ball touches after that in the case of LBW.
What happens when a fielder runs infront of a batter to delibaretly obstruct the batter to not rech the crease in time?
The umpire will be the sole judge whether this action was deliberate, and if so judged, neither of the batsmen shall be dismissed from that ball.
The batting team will also be awarded 5 penalty runs in addition to any runs they have already completed and the one in progress at the time of the obstruction.
In the most recent ODI between South Africa and Australia, South Africa are required to score 223 runs in order to win while Australia only scored 183 runs. Why do we have to score the extra 40 runs when we have the same 29 over period to score it in?
D/L is a very complex system, with many calculations. There is no short way to explain this here completely, but we'll try :)
Basically, D/L is based on resource percentages. As a team, you have 11 batsmen, and therefore a resource of 11 you can draw on.
When Australia started their innings, they had an innings of 50 overs in mind, and were therefore pacing themselves according to that goal. (The fact that SA bowled badly and allowed them to reach 96 off the 19 overs, is immaterial).
When their innings was interrupted, thay have lost only 1 wicket - a good thing for them, and a bad thing for SA with regard to D/L. As they have only used 3 of their 11 resources up to that point (the out batsman and the 2 batting), the D/L system states that they have a lot of batting left in their tank, and therefore, even though they only score 183, D/L projected a much bigger score for them - two reasons, first they still had a lot of their resources left at the time of the interruption, and, when they returned, they had only 10 overs in which to set a target - suddenly much less than they set out with.
Had South Africa taken 3 of 4 wickets at the time of the interruption, the target would have been much more favourable us. Therefore, bad bowling was punished... and good bowling would have been rewarded. This is another part of the system.
South Africa set out, knowing they have only 29 overs, therefore a much different mind-set from the one Australia started their innings, and D/L also included this fact (shorter batting time, quicker scoring rate etc - think of a T20 match where 160-170 is quite normal).
Hope this makes sense...
Like the game of Aus vs RSA in the first odi on 19/10/2011 the match was stopped by rain. Aus scored 183 in 29 Overs why couldnt RSA chase that score? why was the target increased by 40 runs for the same amount of overs? isnt that unfair. same overs but we need more runs?
Please see the reponse we gave elsewhere on this page.
Conrad Strauss asked:
What happens when the bowling team has only one bowler fit/allowed to bowl ? (e.g.: ten bowlers bowled two head high full tosses or were taken out of the attack after running on the pitch or or or). Regards.
If a team cannot continue with the match (in this case, they cannot bowl another over as they have only 1 bowler fit/able to bowl), for whatever reason, they will forfeit the game.
Conrad Strauss asked:
If a team bowls 160 overs with one ball can they take a new ball and then after one ball/over another new ball ?
Every ball in a test match has to be used for a MINIMUM of 80 overs.
Therefore, when the 2nd new ball is taken, they have to bowl with that one for at least 80 overs before they can take another new ball.
Can there ever be 6 overthrows?
That fielder will have to have one heluva arm...
How do I join your panel....some of your answers are suspect!
Our answers are based on the latest MCC's Code 2000 edition. The fact that you disagree with it, does not necessarily mean you are right :) If you have a specific query, leave your email address in another question and we'll get back to you.
Craig Heffer asked:
Could you tell me the ''evolution'' of the LBW law. When was it first introduced and what were the criteria for being given out LBW intitially and through the years how the law came about and changed with the ball pitching outside leg stump can not be given out. I can understand it must have caused a lot of controversy with balls that might have and might not have hit the stumps. But now, with the advent of hawkeye, will this rule not be looked at as well, giving leggies in particular a better chance and preventing padding up and boring spells in Test cricket?
In a nutshell...
When the laws were first codified, back in 1744, there was no provision for LBW. There was simply no need for it as a batsman with a curved bat was highly unlikely to position himself right in front of the wicket. In the ensuing years bats straightened and some batsmen began to use their legs as a line of defence, the disincentive to doing so brought about by the absence of any sort of leg guard notwithstanding. The 1774 revision sought to deal with this new tactic and did so by empowering umpires to give a batsman out if, "with design, he prevented the ball from hitting his wicket otherwise than by the use of his bat."
In 1788 those charged with the task of drafting the laws made a revised attempt. The problematic expression, "with design", was omitted and in its stead a requirement introduced that the ball must pitch straight.
Further tinkering in 1823 brought in a condition that "..the ball must be delivered in a straight line to the wicket."
By 1888 it was proposed that the law should be changed by allowing an lbw decision if a batsman should "...wilfully cross the wicket to defend it with his person". However, the MCC contented themselves with reminding the game that deliberate use of the pads in the manner complained of was "...contrary to the spirit of the game...."
Ever since 1937 a batsman can be given out LBW to a ball that pitches outside the off stump, provided always that the ball strikes him at a point in line between wicket and wicket and, of course, it would have gone on to hit the stumps.
For 1970 and 1971 the law, largely, reverted to what it had been prior to 1935. For those two seasons a batsman could not be out LBW to any delivery that pitched outside the off stump, subject to the proviso that he had to offer a shot at the ball.
This meant two changes. Firstly a batsman could now be out if he padded up to a delivery that would have hit the wicket even if the point of impact was outside the off stump, but only if he offered no stroke - so effectively the law as it is today. (The second change, and this is what lasted only two years, was that if a shot was offered the batsman could not be out to a delivery that pitched outside off stump, even if he was struck in line.)
We feel that this law may require revision soon especially as Hawkeye adnd Hotspot technologies should soon reach a state of 100% reliability.
When a batsman is run out attempting ''another'' run, the runs that have been already been completed, that is, before the bails are dislodged, are added to the teams score. does the same apply when a batsman hits the ball in the air and manages to complete a full run before the ball is caught?
No. The moment a catch is taken, no runs are scored.
replays that are shown on t.v.,are they also shown on the big screen on the field.if so,and the umpire then see he made a mistake.may he call the batsman back,or do he ignore the replay.
The ICC seem to be very inconsistent in this. Sometimes the replays are shown on the big screen, and sometimes they get very upset and rule that NO replays can be shown.
But, whatever the case, the standing umpires are not allowed to rule on what they see on the big screen. So, even if it is blatantly obvious, they cannot change their ruling.
But, with the review system, the replays now actually show up the players not asking for a replay when they should have!
Dewaldt Veldman asked:
I saw now on the news that AB was given out for obstructing. Since when did this rule came in place? And what is the correct way to explain the rule?
The "obstruction" law always existed, but it has been amended on October 1 this year, by making it illegal for the batsman to veer off his line when running between the wickets, in order to intercept a ball thrown in by a fielder with the intention of protecting his stumps.
(ie avoid being run-out).
From what we understood from those who attended the match, is that AB did NOT alter his line, and according to the Law, should not have been given out. We may of course, be wrong, here, but that is what we know about the incident.
Did the "obstructing the field" law change recently? If so, what''s the new law and how does it differ from the old one?
Please see our response elsewhere on these pages.
For what offences are penalty runs awarded?
Penalty runs awarded to the batting side:
* When a fielder returns to the field of play without the umpire's permission
* When a fielder fields the ball willfully with anything else but his person
* When a helmet on the ground - belonging to the fielding side - is hit
* Ball tampering
* Deliberate distraction of the striker
* Deliberate obstruction of batsman
* Time-wasting by the fielding side
* A fielder damaging the pitch
Penalty runs awarded to the Fielding side:
* Deliberate short runs
* Batsman wasting time
* Batsman damaging the pitch
* Batsman stealing a run during the bowler's run-up
Jeanre Bosch asked:
Good day. 1. I would like to know, what changes were made to rules of the ODI''s? I know that there are two ball changes (when are they), no runners are allowed for injured players (Love this rule) and a batsmen arn''t alowed to change directions when running between the wickets.
2. If I am the non striker and take a run, and run across the pitch from the rightside of the pitch to left and I keep running in that direction, this means that I might run between the ball and the wickets and cause an obstruction, but I didn''t change my direction, so what will happen then?
3. Why was the supersub rule taken out? If the teams used the rule better, it would have been very exciting to watch.
1. You're quite right here.
2. As long as you don't veer off course, there should not be a problem. Though the umpire will have a word with you for running on the pitch...
3. Not a great rule, because it was not implemented well. A rule is only as good as its implemented...
Dewaldt Veldman asked:
Thanks for the response on the "obstruction" rule. I saw last night on the BVP program on Kyknet did the panel show the footage of the incident. Fanie then said that the rule is not spesific enough in the rule book, because the ball did''nt hit AB so technically his was not in the way of the stumps. As the rule stands now it is saying if a batsmen change his running line and a fielder throw the ball, even if the batsmen is not hit, he can be given out. Where as the rule should be stated more cleary in the regard that it says if the batsmen change his running line and he is hitted with the ball he can be given out. Will there be a change that this rule would be readvised? other wise how will umpires enforce this rule?
As in most cases, the Law is enforced "in the opinion of the umpire", so it would be the measure in this matter, too.
The more experience an umpire has, the better the chance that he would be able to judge such an incident on its merit. The umpire in question in AB's case was quite inexperienced from what we learned, which could explain his haste to enforce a "new" Law.
Whatever the case, Laws are being looked at regularly, and there must have been enough reason/evidence for the MCC to change the Law to the way it currently stands. No doubt it will be looked at again.
Just a note - the Law itself, is VERY VAGUE indeed, and in the newest ODI Playing Conditions, a paragraph has been added to explain the matter as follows:
"For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that a batsman, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed his direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt to effect a run out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing the field. It shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not."
Hi Guys, thanks for this awesome new tool we have to further our love for the game.
My question is with regards to the LBW law.
I understand that the laws states that the first contact is to be considered when judging LBW.
If a batsmen''s bat is behind his pad, would that not be a technical loophole in that after first contact (hitting the pad) the ball would not have hit the stumps - because the bat was in the way?
I always feel when the bat is there or there abouts the bowler didn''t realy get the upperhand.
The reason a batsman tucks his bat behind his pad is to avoid getting bat to ball and being caught...!
So, he should therefore suffer the full "force of the law" if his pads are hit first, ie able to be adjudged lbw.
Yes, the ball might not have hit the stumps, because the bat was in the way, but the REASON the bat was there is the suspect action is this case.
Dewaldt Veldman asked:
I just like to know that is the rule about fielders behind and in fron of hte batsmen? in other words fine leg and third man are they aloowed to stand directly behind the keeper? And mid off and mid off I know they are not allowed to stand directly behind the bowler, but what is the maximum degree or distance that he should be away from the batsmen eyes?
There are no specifications as to the degree/distance away from the batsman, or, even, whether you can field behind the keeper or bowler.
However (always a however....), there is a limitation to the number of ON-side fielders at the moment of the bowler's delivery. At that moment there cannot be more than 2 fielders (other than the keeper) behind the popping crease on the on side.
And, while the ball is in play and until the batsman has had opportunity to play the ball, no fielder (other than the bowler) can have any part of his person grounded on or extended over the pitch.
And, finally, the fielders cannot move "significantly" after the ball has come into play, apart from minor adjustments to their stance (for close fielders) and fielders in the outfield can move TOWARDS the striker.
Hope this clears it!
Hi can a umpire call a no ball if there are to many fielders behind square and how many are allowd behind square?
At the moment of delivery, there cannot be more than 2 fielders (excluding the wicket keeper)behind square on the leg side. If there are, then the umpire should call no-ball.
Yusef Peer asked:
In the second test match between aus and SA, De villiers was caught by Cummins in the first innings. If you analyse the catch you see that cummins catches the ball and as he falls to the ground he uses his hands to break his fall but with the ball making contact with the ground. I was under the impression that this can not be given out. Could you please clarify?
You are right - it cannot be a fair catch if the ball touches the ground at any point.
Mohammed Omar asked:
How does a no-ball have to be bowled in orrder for it to be a free-hit?
There are no free hits in test cricket.
In the other two formats, a free hit will only be called for a front-foot no-ball - ie when then bowler oversteps the popping crease (the most common type of no-ball).
What is the position when a batsman gets an edge and is caught behind off a no ball, bowler appeals but not out given. The fielding side request a review and it is found that in fact the ball was good. Can the fielding captain refer in the first place ? If not, why is the no ball checked on all reviews ?
If it's found that the no-ball called was in fact not a no-ball, the batsman will be given out.
This, however, is very rare, as the fielding side is generally not aware of balls being no-balls or not, and won't risk losing a referral when a no-ball has been called.
They will more often refer a decision, which may, on review, be shown to be a no-ball and given not out.
Dale Niemand asked:
Hi there, I have a question with regard to ''switch hitting'' and LBW appeals. When the batsman switches his stance, do the criteria for LBW decisions switch accordingly.
For example, a left-handed batsman is struck in-line with the stumps by a ball which pitched outside the line of leg, but he had switched his stance before this happened and attempted to play the stroke as a right-hander.
Will the ball now be deemed to have pitched outside the line of off-stump? It seems only logical that this be the case but I am curious as to the official ruling.
No, the stance of the batsman the moment the bowler starts his run-up, will determine which is his off and on sides.
This puts the bowler at a disadvantage, as the latter has to inform the umpire whenever he wants to bowl around or over the wicket, as well as when he wants to change his bowling arm (which happens extremely rarely).
When Kevin Pietersen highlighted this point with his switch-hits a few seasons ago, this was a point of discussion, though it has never come to a point where the Law was adjusted.
how do you get a bouns point in the new one day cup
Your run rate has to be 1.25 that of your opponents' run rate.
Therefore, making 200 in 50 overs, you either have to dismiss the opposing team before they get 160 (ie your run rate will be more than 1.25 that of your opponents - ie their run rate is at most 0.8 that of yours) to get the bonus point, or your opponents have to get the target inside 40 overs to get a bonus point (ie, a run rate of at least 1.25 that of yours, ie 0.8 of the total number of overs)
Oz Horse asked:
In a recent Champions League T20 game, Jacobs effected a stumping for Mumbai after the ball deflected off his pads onto the stumps. No problem there. However the replays clearly showed Jacobs'' gloves in front of the stumps as he tried to glove the ball. Shouldn''t that have been called a no-ball by the square leg umpire, in which case the stumping wasn''t out. Or has that rule about wicketkepper''s gloves changed?
That is a very close call - it depends at what time his gloves moved in front of the stumps. If it was after the ball passed the striker's wickets, or touched the striker, it is fine.
If it was before that, no-ball should have been called.
We unfortunately do not have footage of that, so cannot comment on that actual moment.
We would suggest that the umpire should in a similar circumstance call for a replay... but, obviously the umpire was happy with the matter, or had his eyes closed :)
af deaney asked:
if a batsman hits a straight drive, but the ball gets deflected off the opposing batsman''s body or bat onto the wicket (and he is out of his wicket), is the non striker out?
No - only if a fielder somehow gets to touch the ball. You cannot physically run out your team mate.
Pieter Marais asked:
Does the fielding captain, when referring a decision to the 3rd unpire, have to state exactly for which type of dismissal they are appealling and now requesting a referral?
Any appeal covers ALL dismissals.
If you appeal for lbw (in the players' minds), but reviews are showing the batsman to be out caught and not lbw, you will still get the wicket.
Therefore, it doesn't matter for which manner of dismissal the fielding side appeals - if the batsman is out in any way, he'll be given out.
Keith Taylor asked:
If a fielder stands outside the rope and waits for a ball and as the ball comes to him he jumps up with his feet of the groung and throws it back in to play and then runs over the rope and catches it. Is he out? Seems unfair, as boundry riders should then wait outside the rope and stop all 6''s and conceed only 2''s at worst unless it''s a massive 6. My thoughts are if the player steps over the boundry line then he is no longer in the game and can no longer play the ball.
Any fielder needs the umpire's permission to return to the field of play. So, he cannot "willy-nilly" step outside and back inside as he wishes.
Sorry but just to clarify my previous question of the fielder stepping over the boundry line and grounding his foot outside the field would then indeicate he has left the field and then needs permision to return to the game and can no longer jump off the ground and throw the ball back into play(not grounding his foot at that time) and catch the ball in field calling for a dismissal. I am pretty sure this happened the other day.
We understood from your previous questions that the fielder is waiting outside the field of play - which is not allowed.
But, stepping over the boundary, having already thrown the ball back into the field of play, and then stepping back onto the field to catch it, is allowed.
Jammer maar my Engels is maar swak en ek gaan in Afrikaans skryf.
Wanneer a kolwer gestonk word deur die paaltjiewagter vanaf a "wide" wie kry die paaltjie? Dit is nie ''n wettige bal nie en kan nie aan bouler gegee word nie of is ek verkeerd?
Dit het nou gebeur in die finaal tussen die Cobras en Warriors.
Afrikaans is doodreg!
Die bouler sal steeds die paaltjie kry, want dit is nie noodwending 'n "swak" bal nie, maar kan deel wees van 'n plan om 'n kolwer te fnuik.
Watson Hlungwani asked:
This a follow-up question which was asked before but it was not answered directly
''''When a batsman is run out attempting ''''another'''' run, the runs that have been already been completed, that is, before the bails are dislodged, are added to the teams score.''''
This is a statement, not a question...
Nicolene Jansen asked:
The other day Graeme Smith was standing on 100 and SA needed one to win. He batted and got a 4, but the end score only showed 101 and not 104. Why?
It all depends on what the two batsmen do - if they have completed the 1 run required before the ball have crossed the boundary, then only 1 run will count (the ball becomes dead the moment the match is won). Otherwise, if they wait for the ball to cross the boundary, 4 runs will count.
Can a bowler change his action from say, fast to spin, in the same over?
Always wanted to know..
Yes, he is allowed to without having to notify the umpire.
Matthew Kretzschmar asked:
Where do the replacement balls come from?
In today''s Sri Lankan innings a ball got out of shape and the umpire''s assistant ran on with a box of balls which Kepler Wessels said had each been used for a different number of overs, e.g. 10 overs, 20 overs etc.
Where do these balls come from?
Are there matches happening out-of-sight somewhere where the umpires specifically stop using a ball after 10 or 20 overs and put it in the ball replacement box? Or are they used for a set number of overs in the nets?
These balls come from other test matches or first class matches where the same type of ball has been used. The number of overs the ball has "done" is being written on it at the end of an innings. Especially shorter innings is quite valuable when it comes to selecting a ball for "the box" :)
Does achievements in an abandoned match count towards a player’s career record?
For example, in a limited overs match a player scores a hundred, but because of rain the match cannot be completed and no result is possible. Does this affect the player’s career stats and batting average?
The moment the first ball is bowled, everything that happens counts. Players' stats are independent of the result of the match.
Just bear in mind that an "abandoned" match always implies NO play was possible.
The moment a ball is bowled, it will become "no result" in an ODI/limited overs match, and "match drawn" in a test/first class match if no further play is possible after the first ball.
Mike Browne asked:
I was reading the one question about results in T20 and ODI''s below (Bob Izzett). While I agree that it can''t just be a runs argument, surely if the team batting second wins they should win by a certain number of balls and not wickets?
I.e. Team A scores 150 in their 20 overs, Team B then chases this down in 19.5 overs for the loss of only 1 wicket. Surely calling the result as won by 1 ball to spare gives a better reflection than won by 9 wickets?
Cricket has always been about runs and wickets.
If you don't win by the one, you win by the other.
Why does winning by 1 ball in this regard give a better reflection than winning by 9 wickets?
This is not really a discussion forum, but a Law forum, and Law states that a team either wins by runs or by wickets.
If a side batting last wins without losing all its wickets, it will be stated as a win by the number of wickets still to fall.
Hi Law Boffin
In the recent Test against Sri Lanka we had a situation where South Africa may have been thinking of declaring on their overnight score. What is the latest time they can do this? 10 minutes before the scheduled start of play?
They only need to declare in time for the 7 minutes pitch-rolling to take place. As opting to have the pitch rolled or not is the entitlement of the batting captain, he must be granted the opportunity to do so.
Mike Ashcroft asked:
Do you feel the law should be changed so that if the fielding side throw''s the ball at the wicket and breaks the wicket, but the ball ricochet''s away for runs, that the law should be changed to make the ball dead as soon as the wicket has been broken and no further runs can be taken, as this seems very unfair to the fielding side.
That has been a contentious issue of many years now, and, yes, we would like to see the Law changed to award good fielding.
Mike Stanyon asked:
Did Marchant De Lange not bowl the closing over last night? How can he open this morning? 2 consecutive overs? I thought someone had to bowl in between overs.
Marchant bowled part of his over (3 balls) before stumps were called, and therefore had to complete his over on resumption the next day.
Is there a guideline for umpires to measure light, incident light or reflected light? It seems to me the umpires are somewhat unsure; they frequently poke the meter in all different directions--if you measure reflected light you are going to get different readings when you point the meter at grass, a white shirt, the sight screen etc. It leaves the spectator feeling they are not sure what they are doing. Any serious photographer will tell you, measure incident light, you''ll get consistent readings and make better decisions. Incident light is measured by fitting a dome over the lightmeter lens and then pointing the meter up. Maybe pass the question on to commentators at Supersport and open up some discussion--it will also help reassure us the umpires know what they are doing and can make consistent light readings.
As to your question about the guideline - the only guideline for the umpires is whether they think there is a real danger of physical injury should they allow play to continue. That's the cut-off point.
The rest of your comments is up for discussion, and this is not the right forum for that.
The batsman plays a shot to mid wicket and steal a run, the fielder then throws at the stumps but misses and the ball runs off to the boundary, in the interim the batsmen then run another run before the ball gets to the boundary, is this 6 or 5 runs?
All runs completed, as well as the one in progress (provided the batsmen have crossed at the instant the ball reaches the boundary) will count together with the 4 runs. Therefore, in your example, if one concludes that they have completed two runs before the ball crossed the boundary, a total of 6 runs will be scored.
Wessie van der Westhuizen asked:
This question was ask on Radio 702. Which team will win a game if they are level and the bowling team bowl a wide and the batsmen is stump? Somebody that apperently is a umpire expert said the batting team will win of the wide but how can you been stump of a wide during the game but not of last ball if the teams are level.
The moment the Wide is bowled, it gives the batting team the one run they need to win, and the ball will subsequently immediately become dead - therefore, the stumping will not count.
Hope this clarifies it.
Ken Donkin asked:
What constitutes a follow-on in test cricket?
How is it enforced,and
How it it avoided?
If the side batting first (Team A) in a test match leads by at least 200 runs in their first innings to the first innings score of the side batting second (Team B), Team A has the option to ask Team B to follow their innings (ie bat again upon the conclusion of their 1st innings).
Therefore, Team B has to ensure they score at most 199 runs less than Team A in order to avoid the follow-on.
Eg. Team A scored 500.
Team B has to score at least 301 runs to avoid the follow-on (ie trail by at most 199) - if they can only manage 300, the lead is 200 and Team B has the option to enforce the follow-on.
I have 2 that have been niggling at me:
1) Can a batsman be given out caught if his hands were not on the bat when the ball was delivered to him? EG. it is a nasty bouncer and the batsman makes an absolute hash of getting out the way, takes his hand off the bat and the ball hits the bat and is caught by a fielder. is that out?
2) If the ball hits a close in fielder on the helmet and is caught, it is not out. I remember a few years ago with David Boon fielding in close and Cyril Mitchley giving the batsman not out because it hit Boon on the helmet. Does the same apply to the wicket keeper when he is close in with a helmet on?
1. The hand holding the bat is considered to be part of the bat, BUT if the hand is not touching the bat, it's fine. If the ball strikes this hand, he will not be out.
2. The helmet worn by the wicket-keeper is still being regarded as being worn by a fielder, therefore a catch cannot be claimed when the ball has struck his helmet.
As a team may take the new ball anytime after 80 overs, is there a maxinum number of overs to be bowled with a ball before a change is mandatory? Say the batsmen are struggling to see the ball???
No, there is no mandatory change of ball. If the batsmen cannot see the ball, it's the umpires' prerogative to decide to change the ball.
JOHANN BRITZ asked:
Can you please explain on what basis it was decided that a cricket ball has to be replaced after 80 overs in a test match? I''m 64 and this goes back as far as I can remember. Surely new materials and production methods should have an impact on the modern ball''s "longevity", or is it just a matter of traditon?
Thanks for your time.
It is not a mandatory change - the fielding side can play with the old ball for a long as they wish. The Laws state that the option of the new ball becomes available after a minimum of 75 overs - in test cricket it is 80 overs, as you've already mentioned.
Balls are still made in fairly the same way as years before, by hand, and with hand stitching (some use machines, but it doesn't really make it stronger - it just goes quicker), so the manufacturing has not changed that dramatically over the years.
Interesting video about the manufacturing of
Hi just wondering if a bowler are injured during play on the field, why can''t the substituted bowler (12th men) not bowl in the game?
That's what the Law states. A substituted fielder can field, but not bowl, bat or keep wicket. It is far too easy to manipulate it, otherwise.
Say you lose the toss, having selected two spinners, and now you will not bowl last on a crumbling pitch. Ensure one of the spinners "pull a muscle" and a quicky can come on as substitute and solve the teams' problems...
Far too risky, this...!
EXPLAIN THIS FOLLOW ON RULE TO ME PLEASE AS IF NOW SRI LANKA HAS TO MAKE ABOVE OUR RUNS WHAT''S GONNA HAPPEN AFTER ARE WE STILL GOING TO BAT OR THEY''LL THE MATCH? *CONFUSED*
In a test match, the team batting 2nd has to come WITHIN 200 runs of the other team's 1st innings score on order to avoid the follow-on.
ie, Team A scores 500 - Team B has to score at least 301 runs to avoid being asked to follow on.
Should Team B follow on and score 400 runs (for instance), Team B still has their 2nd innings to score the runs needed to win.
You don't forfeit your 2nd innings when asking a team to follow on.
How come the batsmen ducks, and gets four runs if it comes off the helmet (as leg-byes), but when a batsmen takes evasive action, and the ball goes off the pads you are not allowed to run or it''s a dead ball?
This is a matter for the umpires - they have to decide whether the batsman was taking evasive action (in order to avoid injury) or not.
Should they decide it was legitimate evasive action, they will award leg byes, otherwise the ball will become dead and no runs will be scored.
Sometimes, batsmen are very clever in the way they "take evasive action", trying to trick the umpire into thinking that they played a shot whereas they didn't, but international umpires are quite clever themselves and up to the challenge :)
There was an incident in the last SA Sri Lanka game where Dale Steyn picked up the ball off his own bowling and had a shy at the stumps. The batsman, I cannot remember who he was, I think Chandimal, was in his crease and put his bat down to stop the ball. According to the new laws, if SA had appealed, would he have been given out?
No, since he was already in his crease, there was no opportunity of a run-out.
Shaun Harris asked:
Can a batsman be stumped off a no ball?
No. A bowler can never benefit from a no-ball. And a stumping is a wicket that gets credited to the bowler.
Please explain why in 3rd test vs Sri Lanka the Proteas were not credited with the boundry 4 Petersen hit after the no-ball was bowled. Is it true that in Test cricket once the "target" has been reached the remaining runs (in this case the 3) gets discarded ??
Yes, once the winning runs are scored (in this case SA needed 2, SL bowled a no-ball and SA completed a single before the ball reached the boundary) the ball becomes dead and nothing else can happen off it.
You will notice a batsman on 48 (or 98) will ensure that they don't complete the single needed before the ball crosses the boundary, which will rob him of his milestone! :)
Enjoying what i have read so far,
Just a quick one,
If a bowler is running up and a fielder "chirps" the batsman and the batsman is distracted and is either bowled or plays a loose shot and is caught, can the batsman appeal this?
The umpire will probably call "dead ball" before the bowler bowled the ball.
It is unfair for the fielder to try and distract the batsman by word/deed, and should the batsman lose his wicket as a result, the umpire should (if he know his Laws) not allow such a dismissal.
Wendy Schmidt asked:
What is silly point?
It is a close-in fielding position square of the wicket on the off side. Therefore, the player will stand - 3-4 metres away from the striker, about 30deg in front of the wickets on the off side...
Sorry, it will work better with a picture!
Neels Wessels asked:
Please provide more information on the batsman (not batter, urgh)given out handling the ball
Urgh! indeed! :)
Either batsman can be given out if he WILFULLY touches the ball with hand/s not holding the bat, unless he does this with the consent of a fielder. Including returning the ball to a fielder.
He can, however, handle the ball in order to avoid injury.
how does the duckworth lewis sistem work?and what do they mean that a batsmen can not run or obstuct the fielder?
D/L is too complicated to explain in a few lines. It is based on batting resource available (wickets and balls), meaning that the more wickets you've lost (ie the more batsmen you've used) the higher your score should be, and the longer you've batted, the higher your total should be.
It is calulated by computer.
A batsman cannot wilfully obstruct a fielder from performing his duties (ie taking a catch or trying to effect a run-out) - if the batsman interferes, he can be given out "obstructing the field".
Steve Rich asked:
Watching the Proteas yesterday, and in particular Smiths dismissal by Malinga, Malinga''s "flat" arm action appears to give him the ability to deliver a yorker more consistently and for that matter, more accurately. Looking at the mechanics of his arm action, he appears to get more torque with his shoulders pivoting around his spine rather than by having his spine form part of his arm leverage as in the conventional action.
I tried his action in the nets with my son and it definitely allows for a fuller fast ball.
My question, if Malinga''s action allows him the ability to deliver a wider range of "deliveries", should this constitute an advantage over the conventional arm action? Also, what do the ICC think of his action?
Not really a Law question...
According to Law, Mainga's action is fair, and if he can achieve more without bowling an illegal ball, then that is to his advantage.
We are not aware of the ICC having any suspicions over his action.
In a recent match, SA required 2 runs to win. The bowler bowled a no ball, the batsman hit it for 4, he also completed a run in the process. Why was the batsman awarded 2 runs and not 4?
We have answered a similar question elsewhere on this page.
The moment the two batsmen finished the single needed to win, the ball became dead, and therefore the boundary didn't count.
I see in your introductory paragraph you raise a question of when is a batsman stumped vs run out. I don''t think you''ve actually answered it below, please do.
Also, if a batsman hits a ball that then subsequently rolls towards the stumps, why is he allowed to stop the ball from dislodging the bails? Please clarify the whole issue around that and obstruction of the field etc. What about a double-hit rule?
That question remains for you guys to ask - it was just a poser.
A batsman is allowed to protect his stumps - he can do so by hitting a ball that is about to roll onto his wicket with his bat. That is all fine.
A double-hit dismissal as you call it, (hitting the ball twice) only comes into play when he actually treis to SCORE RUNS off that SECOND hit. Then it becomes illegal and he can be given out.
Obstructing the field is a dismissal which the batsman will suffer when he - by word or deed - obstruct a fielder to effect a dismissal. Before this season, it was basically to do with obstructing a fielder to take a catch, but has now been extended to include running between the wickets. Should a batsman ALTER HIS LINE of running between the wickets in order to intercept the ball being thrown to the stumps (as they were allowed to do before), he can now been given out Obstructing the Field should the ball hit him. The only problem here is that there does not ne3ed to be any proff that the ball was actually going to hit the stumps had it not hit the batsman first, so the fielders can now aim at the batsman, and still get the wicket...
We would like to predict that the MCC will look at this Law in the very near future again...
Regarding the run-out and stumping - quite tricky...
The requirements for being out Stumped are the same as those for run-out, with some additions...
* The delivery must NOT be a no-ball (ie the wicket-keeper cannot run-out a batsman off a no-ball. Any other fielder can)
* The keeper must be the ONLY fielder in contact with the ball before breaking the wicket. That includes a helmet off the fielding side (including the keeper's own helmet).
Also, a decision for Stumping will override a run-out.
When a ball deflects off of the body/pad of a batsman who is not offering a shot, at what point is the ball called dead. ie. can a batsman be run out attempting a leg bye that he will not be granted should he complete it?
The umpire will wait to see is there are any dismissals resulting from the running of the batsmen, or if the ball becomes dead any other way. If nothing happens, the umpire will signal dead ball as soon as a run is completed (or the ball crosses the boundary).
In running, the batsmen, therefore, risk being dismissed from a ball that would not have brought them any runs anyway....
Muhammad Ramzan Ali asked:
After how many overs replace a ball in test cricket
The fielding team has the option of the new ball after a minimum of 80 overs.
Can you please explain to me the rules regarding the position and movement of a bowler''s arm, what is legal, and what isn''t, and do the rules differ for spinner''s vs. seamers?
Also (if the first part doesn''t fill up the page) how have these rules changed over the years, was slinging ever illegal, was underarm or bent arms allowed?
Thanks a lot!
To put it simply: Current regulations of the International Cricket Council (ICC) set the legal limit of 15 degrees of permissible straightening of the elbow joint for all bowlers in international cricket. This law applies between the point at which the bowling arm passes above shoulder height and the point at which the ball is released.
(You also cannot bowl underarm.)
No difference is made between spinners and seamers.
Underarm bowling was the norm in the beginning of cricket, and the MCC initially banned round-arm and overarm bowling.
In 1835 the MCC legalised round-arm bowling and overarm bowling was legalised in 1964. The law against throwing has not changed in its essence since then.
Bob Gillett asked:
When announcing cricket scores why is it that only Australia puts the wickets first when all the rest of the world puts the runs first, e.g.1 for 50 (Aust) 50 for 1 (rest of world) ??
The reasons for this has been lost in the midst of time...
The only reason we can think of (and it is quite logical, unfortunately) is that it stays in line with the bowler's analysis of eg 2-23 or 2/23 or two for twenty-three.
Though, looking at the way the bowler's analysis is written, it is in the order of overs-maidens-runs-wickets, so this contradicts the way in which a bowler's figures are written (2-23)...
Interesting and inexplicable :)
Waldi Fourie asked:
Can you please explain why ODI''s are played with a white ball & Tests with a red ball??
Mainly because of the introduction of coloured clothing. A red ball would not show up as easily against the coloured background as a white ball would.
Of course, since it's been played under lights, white is also more visible under lights than red.
Eric Maritz asked:
Re the 1stT20 against New Zealand, Wellington, having watched on Tv the 1st game and recorded it I noticed that on at least 8 occations the SA batsman - facing the bowler, had the big screen TV flashing !!!!!!!!!!!! In his eyeline. And yet when the NZ batsman were facing the TV screen was either static or showing normal TV. Is this fair? I thought Cricket was a gentlemans game. I believe what NZ TV did was blatently obvious. Regards Eric .
It is usually part of the agreement and conditions the ICC set for the operation of scoreboards and replays on score/video boards, that there should be no moving images on the scoreboard/video board when the bowler runs in until the batsman has had opportunity to hit the ball.
When a batsman hits a ball for a second time or kicks it away to prevent it from hitting the wickets, can the batsman:
1) be caught (presuming that he hit it and the ball never touched the ground) or:
2) take a run if the ball rolls away far enough after being hit again/kicked ?
Yes, he can be caught, presuming he hit the ball and it did not touch the ground, and he cannot take a run after the second HIT - he will then be liable to be given out "hit the ball twice'.
Should he try to run after he's KICKED the ball, the umpire will rule a dead ball and no run will be scored and the batsmen will return to their original ends.
DRS Chicken/egg situation
In the 47th over of the current s.a vs n.z test match new zealand the on-field ump turned down an lbw appeal which was subsequently reviewed by N.Z. The review showed that the bowler had bowled a no ball(overstepping) and the decision was turned down, however N.Z did not lose a review because the umpire had not spotted the no ball, Question..Was this a correct interpratation of the law because my understanding is that teams should lose a review if the ball was a no ball,
Yes, they had the correct interpretation. It was a mistake by the umpire, which, had the no-ball been called, there would have been no initial lbw-decision, and no need for NZ to review anything. So you cannot penalise the team for a mistake of the umpire.
vossie fourie asked:
if you can remember when sa was batting, one of the batsmen drove the ball over a heap of sawdust. why were they not given 5 runs wich will be the same as the ball was hitting the helmet? surely the bowling side asked for sawdust? regards.
The only time the Laws refer to sawdust is to state it can be used to secure the footing for the bowlers.
There is place to question its inclusion in penalties, as is the case with the helmet - in both instances the "use" of it was not intentionally harmful. And it is interesting to note that - of all the penalty infringements - only in the case of the helmet being hit are the umpires not required to report it afterwards to the authorities. The reason being that it was not deliberate.
We agree that sawdust-penalty should probably be looked at.
Should the umpires, however, detect anything willful/suspect in the placing of the sawdust, they should advise the fielding side to remove it before play resumes.
Last ball of the game. Scores are tied, 9 wickets down; and the batsman gets stumped off a wide. Who wins? The obvious answer is that the wide happens first, therefore the batting team wins. But think how this ball would be scored in normal play - one more run, one more ball, one less wicket. I know this is against the "law of the game", but i suggest that the batting team should win by zero wickets. Your thoughts?
You've said it yourself - in "normal play" it is one more run first.
And in your example, the moment the single is scored, the winning target has been reached, and the ball becomes dead. Therefore, the stumping happened outside of the match, and for all intents and purposes didn't take place.
What is the correct description / naming for the screen beyond the boundary behind the bowler - "side" or "sight" screen? Surely it is the latter; i hear commentators use both.
it is "sight" screen, because it assists with the batsman's sight of the ball.
Can both batsmen be given out at the same eg run out where both wickets are stump and batmens having reach thier ceases.
No. Law states that once a wicket has been taken, the ball becomes dead and nothing more can happen off that delivery.
aldrin koester asked:
hey i have ask the q b4 the bowler from pakistan Tanveer,bowling round the wicket,his left foot landed outside the line on the side of pitch,what is that surpose to be?tank u
We have answered you before...
Johnny Warren asked:
On TMS just now . . . England/Aussies. . .Forreest hit on hip, they try to run a single, but sent back by umpire, who rules he wasn''t attempting to play a shot or take evasive action, and signals''dead ball''. If the ball nad not hit Forrest, but carried on and they took a run, that who have been a Bye. Why not a Leg Bye ?
The moment the umpire deemed that no shot was attempted, he will signal dead ball and the batsmen will return to their original ends, and no run will be scored. If the ball did NOT hit the batsmen, the same would have happened. The team cannot benefit if the batsman did not attempt a shot.
Where do they get replacement balls from? Especially seeing they need to be of similar wear and tear.
These are being accumulated during first class matches over all the years - the number of overs bowled is being written on each ball for reference.
What is the rule\limits on a bastmen changing his stance from right handed to lef handed or vise versa?A captain sets his field for a right hander and in the bowlers run up the batsmen switches to left,legal?
At the moment it is legal. To the dismay of many fielding teams... One can say that the batsman is taking a risk by changing his stance, therefore negating some (or all) of the advantage he would have gained. Therefore he cedes some of the advantage to the fielding side.
We can foresee a change in this Law, though.