|
|
Post by Acumen on Aug 3, 2012 9:31:36 GMT
Steve Davis called Dead Ball when Steven Finn knocked the bails off in his delivery stride because he thought the striker might have been distracted. This deprived Finn of a possible catch and, later, saved two boundaries!
Would you have called Dead Ball in this situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Aug 3, 2012 17:33:49 GMT
How long is it likely to be before the batsman says he is distracted by the bowler following through after delivery? Would that make the umpire signal dead ball after every delivery where the bowler distracted the batsman with his follow through? It's getting ridiculous in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 4, 2012 8:18:12 GMT
goodersCouldn't agree more - though if some of the bowlers I see are as accurate at this as bowling at the stumps ...! 
|
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Aug 4, 2012 8:52:28 GMT
In Davies's defence, he didn't start calling Dead Ball until the 3rd or 4th time the bails were knocked off, and after the batsmen had said they were distracted. After this, he called it consistently, even when the ball was hit for 4.
In the same way that the umpire has no way of knowing whether the batsman is actually distracted by someone behind the arm, there's no real alternative but to accept the batsman's word, while ensuring that future instances don't become an effective free hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Aug 6, 2012 18:55:09 GMT
Could this be gamesmanship by the batsman trying to upset the bowler? Surely no striker is looking anywhere other than the bowler's hand?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 7, 2012 10:47:46 GMT
It could be gamesmanship by the batsman ... or ... it could be gamesmanship by the bowler. Who can tell?
My concern is that calling Dead Ball might become too much of a habit, causing even more delay when it inevitably filters down to the leagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Aug 8, 2012 11:10:47 GMT
Totally agree jaybee, particularly when you realise that some. if not most, leagues place a time restriction on when the overs have to be completed by. In Derbyshire, above a certain tier, the last of 46 overs has to be commenced before 2 3/4 hrs is up, and for the 50 overs in the top 2 tiers, the time limit is 3 hrs. These plus unavoidable or acceptable delays.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 9, 2012 6:28:09 GMT
Does that mean that it's likely to go the way of the review system - something like three strikes and then a penalty (rather than no more reviews)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Suhas Sapre on Aug 23, 2012 11:50:37 GMT
RE: BOWLER KNOCKS BAILS OFF...?
It could be the first of its kind in the history of Test cricket that a batsman is not given out caught, just because the bowler happened to dislodge the bails while delivering the ball.
I would say the bowler has every right to bowl from close of the stumps or wide of the stumps. The Law is not breached for any reason. It has happened to me on numeral occasions while umpiring or it would have happened to all class of umpires, but never was the batsman distracted by that and was given not out.
There is no Willful act on part of the bowler and this happens almost after or at the time of bowler releasing the ball. This is in a fraction of a second and the fact is that either the umpire or the batsman gets a noise out of it unless the bowler has banged on the stumps. If at all the batsman is distracted by that and the batsman was not given out then why the umpire did not invoke the penalty of 5 runs to the batting side.
If the batsman has drawn the attention of the umpire that the bails at the bowler's end are disturbed so often, then the umpire should have informed the fielding side captain and warned the bowler that the batsman gets distracted for the said reason.
On the contrary when bowler dislodges the bails, the fielding side has little bit difficulty for getting the batsman run out at that end as the bails are off. Only the fielding side can remake the wicket while the ball is in play and Umpire can only do so after the ball becomes dead. So the batting side has the advantage of that for run out. As such, the incident was not fair and the issue has now become debatable. These are my personal views on the issue.
Suhas Sapre (Baroda 23/08/2012)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Aug 24, 2012 14:29:59 GMT
I think the Law is clear on the issue and provides for action by the umpire.
This leaves no scope at all for the umpire to apply what is commonly known as 'common sense'.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Aug 24, 2012 20:05:44 GMT
In Davies's defence, he didn't start calling Dead Ball until the 3rd or 4th time the bails were knocked off, and after the batsmen had said they were distracted. After this, he called it consistently, even when the ball was hit for 4. And there you have it in a nutshell. How often can a batsman claim that he is distracted, and then hit a ball delivered at about 90mph for 4? It just shows that it was gamesmanship on the part of the batsman IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 25, 2012 7:53:57 GMT
... And there you have it in a nutshell. How often can a batsman claim that he is distracted, and then hit a ball delivered at about 90mph for 4? It just shows that it was gamesmanship on the part of the batsman IMHO. Good point - and there would be the further 'distraction' of the Dead Ball call if made early enough! |
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Aug 25, 2012 8:53:10 GMT
The striker might have thought the umpire called "No Ball" and reacted accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 26, 2012 8:31:50 GMT
I would never consider this to be a distraction and I am worried that one Test match might change the way we all have to umpire.
What next? Dead ball when the bowler grunts during delivery (as many do), or dead ball when the umpire shouts no-ball on seeing the front-foot land...surely these instances are just as 'distracting'.
|
|
