SERIOUS DATABASE PROBLEM « Result #2 on Jul 28, 2010, 8:52am »
I understand that ProBoards had a catastrophic disc failure and consequently lost all postings between approx 30jun10 and 27jul10 on many forums including ours.
Just like BP, they had suspended taking backups because these were slowing the system down! The lesson in both cases is that safety and reliability is more important than speed.
Unfortunately there is no way in which I can make my own backups.
Apologies to all readers and, especially, contributors. I would encourage you to post a precis of your missing questions and answers if you can remember them.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: Obstructing the field « Result #3 on Jun 29, 2010, 11:06pm »
I think it stands to reason that the same principle as your first scenario depicted would apply. No catch was possible so 37.3 cannot apply. He would be NOT OUT
Re: Obstructing the field « Result #4 on Jun 29, 2010, 12:04pm »
Okay.. Here another one..
the batsman gets an inside edge on to his pads and the ball balloons up and looks to be heading for the stumps.The wicket-keeper is waiting to gather the ball.The batter knocks the ball away in defense of his wicket. he is NOT OUT Hit the ball twice(law 34.3),but OUT Obstructing the field(law34.3, 37.3).
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 7 Location: Derbyshire, England Karma: 0
Re: "Free Hit" scenario « Result #5 on Jun 29, 2010, 3:29am »
An interesting situation occurred during a recent ODI between England and Australia. Swann was fielding at short square leg when a front foot no ball was called and a free hit given. It initially appeared that Strauss was changing the field as Swann went deep. He actually went very deep as he left the field for the free hit - obviously not wanting his head knocking off by a big slog off the free hit. I do not know if this was provided for in the rules, or was an improvisation by the on field umpires. Regardless it was a very sensible solution (on safety grounds), that the umpires agreed to very quickly, and is similar to my suggestion about removing one of the 3 leg side fielders to make the field placement legal.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 7 Location: Derbyshire, England Karma: 0
Re: Are you timing the incoming batsman? « Result #7 on Jun 29, 2010, 2:41am »
I simply make a note of the time of the fall of wicket. I then don't concern myself too much with how long the new batsman takes to come out and take guard (I have not experienced a delay so far) but am prepared should an appeal be made.
Also it is not an appeal I would answer without first consulting with my colleage (who I usually go and stand with at the fall of a wicket).
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 7 Location: Derbyshire, England Karma: 0
Re: Obstructing the field « Result #8 on Jun 29, 2010, 2:27am »
I agree with Wisden that in the case of a no ball it is the non-striker who is out "Obstructing the Field". The striker cannot be caught of a no ball therefore a catch has not been prevented but the fielder was still distracted (obstructed) by the words of the non-striker.
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 202 Location: Derbyshire Karma: 0
Re: Violence on the field of play « Result #9 on Jun 28, 2010, 5:12pm »
If this ever were to happen through local league regulations then 'retired out' would seem the most sensible answer. He's not retired through injury so he can't keep his average.
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 81 Location: Buckinghamshire Karma: 1
Re: Violence on the field of play « Result #10 on Jun 28, 2010, 11:17am »
I agree that the Laws don't allow the umpire to do this though some leagues have sanctions in their playing rules / disciplinary codes. For example in the Home Counties Premier League the umpires have power to suspend a player from taking any further part in the match if he commits a Level 4 offence (which includes physical assault) and no substitute is allowed. I hesitate to suggest how this should be recorded - but it would be a travesty if a batsman were recorded as 'Not Out' in such circumstances (it would then boost his average). Perhaps this is something where the Laws could be updated from the grassroots up, rather than having matters with little practical relevance to most of the cricket played in the UK imposed because they affect the professional game.
Re: Obstructing the field « Result #11 on Jun 28, 2010, 12:51am »
Hmm, this is an interesting question, and one I don't at first know the answer to.
My gut feeling is that the non-striker is out, as is simply a case of obstructing the field, and not obstructing the field-preventing a catch (in which case it would be the striker who is out).
If you have a look at how Law 37.5 is worded it would seem to suggest this to, and seems to point to the only runs being allowed off a dismissal of obstructing the field-preventing a catch being penalty runs, in the form of 5 penalty runs.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: Obstructing the field « Result #12 on Jun 28, 2010, 12:10am »
Abhi, I think the striker is still out - even if there was no chance of a catch. It is still obstruction of the field. Law 24.15 is quite clear that you can be out Obstructing the field from a No Ball. I haven't found anything in the Laws that would excuse him.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: Absent Batsman « Result #13 on Jun 27, 2010, 11:43pm »
Abhi, my understanding is that they could not be recorded any way other than DNB since neither of them had actually commenced their inning as per Law 2.10
As for the team, it is irrelevant in these circumstances how many wickets were lost in the innings as it is treated as a completed innings. As per Law 12.3(b) an innings is completed when a side is bowled out or no further batsman is available to bat. The team would be in effect only 8 wickets down which would have no impact on the result, but could have an impact on percentage and the teams position on the ladder.
Joined: Aug 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 2 Location: Nottinghamshire Karma: 0
Re: Are you timing the incoming batsman? « Result #14 on Jun 27, 2010, 9:18pm »
A batsman has three minutes to be at the crease following the fall of a wicket. An umpire should record the time at the fall of a wicket. If subsequently the fielding side makes an appeal for "timed out" then you have a record in which to make your decision.
Are you timing the incoming batsman? « Result #16 on Jun 27, 2010, 7:10pm »
A few weeks ago, when I was watching a T20, one incoming batsman seemed to be taking a long time to get ready and there was an appeal for Timed Out. Unfortunately the umpires had not been timing him accurately and eventually decided they could not be certain and allowed him to continue.
Since then, I have been timing batsmen and have been surprised how many do actually exceed T20's 90 seconds without anyone noticing.
On the other hand, in normal cricket, I have also had fielders complaining abot the delay even before 2 minutes have elapsed.
Has anyone else been taking this issue seriously? Would you be in a position to answer an appeal to for timed out with evidence?
Obstructing the field « Result #18 on Jun 26, 2010, 4:22pm »
Hi All...
The striker push a ball, which is NOT a NO BALL, in the air towards the bowler. The non striker shouted 'Drop it' 'Drop it' to prevents a catch being taken.In that case the striker was OUT obstructing the field(law 37.3).
How should an appeal be answered,if it was a NO BALL?(not preventing a catch,not attepmting a run)
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 202 Location: Derbyshire Karma: 0
Re: Violence on the field of play « Result #19 on Jun 25, 2010, 9:00am »
I don't think the umpire has the power to send an individual off; certainly it doesn't specifically say so in The Laws. He can report it and/or abandon the match and let the league deal with it; in either case the batsman would be not out.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Violence on the field of play « Result #20 on Jun 25, 2010, 7:03am »
I hope it never happens, but I have often wondered .... If, when the ball is dead, a batsman physically assaults another player and he is sent off, (which I assume is the correct response from the umpires because the Laws tell us that there is no place for violence on the field) how is it recorded by the scorers. Is he Retired - Out, because none of the 10 methods of dismissal fit, unless he was actually obstructing the field whilst the ball was in play.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: Runners « Result #21 on Jun 24, 2010, 2:12am »
Thanks for your replies jaybee and wisden. I did find that clarification after I posted the question, and I will pass it on. Jaybee, I'll just clarify the question as it was posed. The diagram showed the I/S out of his ground, the runner out of his ground and the Non- Striker out of his ground. The bails at the strikers end had been removed. If I had answered that the I/S was out Run Out, I thought I would have been assuming too much, eg that the I/S had started to run. I therefore gave both answers as if the I/S was not attempting a run (and in the exam there was no indication that he was or wasn't) and that the keeper had removed the bails, he should be given out Stumped. Obviously if he was just daydreaming out of his crease and the bails were removed by eg short leg, he would be run out regardless of what he was doing, which is what I meant by "depending who removed the bails". I hope that all makes sense. I'm glad I'm not a schoolteacher - I have a feeling I would leave behind me a trail of very confused people!!
Re: Runners « Result #22 on Jun 23, 2010, 11:27pm »
Hi Reggie, that's just plain wrong. I hadn't even thought of that as a reason (!). Just looked on Lord's website, and found there's actually a direct clarification on this point, which you really should forward onto the Victorian Cricket Association.
2-H Stumped when the striker has a runner (1) It is accepted that if the non-striker or a runner, if there is one, is out of his ground, then he is considered to be attempting a run. Does that mean that in order for the striker to be out Stumped, his runner must be within his ground? It is true that, where relevant, when the runner is not in his ground he is to be considered to be running. However, Law 2.8 specifically states that the striker will be “out in the circumstances or Law 38 (Run out) or Law 39 (Stumped) irrespective of the position of the non-striker or of the runner.” This means that if the striker himself is out of his ground, the position of his runner is irrelevant.
Jaybee, wasn't clear what you meant by ' The runner could have been daydreaming with his bat lifted and his feet in front of the crease without any intention of running'. If a runner is out of his ground, then by definition he is regarded as running, as his sole function is there to run (the same logic applies to the non-striker, if at any time he is out of his ground, he is regarded as attempting a run, which has a knock-on affect with Law 42.5(iv) for example).
... I sat the exam last night ... and answered that the I/S was out either Run Out or Stumped depending who removed the bails
That's not quite right Reggie. A stumping can only be carried out by the wicketkeeper but if the striker starts to run he's run out whoever removes the bails. Quote:
... but was told afterwards that he could only be out Run Out as the runner had commenced running.
Unless there was more detail in the question than you've posted here that's not necessarily the case. The runner could have been daydreaming with his bat lifted and his feet in front of the crease without any intention of running - but that's irrelevant because the striker was out of his ground. If the striker hasn't started to run and the keeper removes the bails that's within Law 39 (stumped). Law 39 1(b) says: "The striker is out Stumped if all the conditions of (a) above are satisfied, even though a decision of Run out would be justified." To me that's a clear indication that in your case he would have been stumped whatever the runner was doing unless he (the striker) started to run. So you're right to say that Quote:
the bowler who had the I/S legitimately stumped could reasonably be a bit upset
- but that's because the decision should have been 'stumped' and the umpire would have made a mistake. Had the striker been within his ground with the runner outside, then that's 'Run Out' whether or not the runner was setting off for a run - Law 2 8(b): "A batsman with a runner will suffer the penalty for any infringement of the Laws by his runner ... In particular ... if his runner is out under any of Laws 33 (Handled the ball), 37 (Obstructing the field) or 38 (Run out)." The general consensus is that the omission of a mention of stumping here - and the lack of anything about the runner in Law 39 - means that if the dismissal is because of the runner's failure it's always Run Out. That's logical since the batsmen won't have been deceived by the bowler's wiles and so the bowler shouldn't get credit.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: Runners « Result #24 on Jun 23, 2010, 4:42am »
Thanks Wisden, that was my understanding - the Law seems unambiguous to me. I sat the exam last night with Victorian Cricket Association and answered that the I/S was out either Run Out or Stumped depending who removed the bails but was told afterwards that he could only be out Run Out as the runner had commenced running. If that is the case I think the bowler who had the I/S legitimately stumped could reasonably be a bit upset that he gets no credit for the wicket because of the runner.
Re: Runners « Result #25 on Jun 23, 2010, 2:32am »
Well my understanding is that the injured striker would be out stumped. Law 2.8 (c) having the phrase '. . . irrespective of the position of the non-striker or of the runner'.
The reason for this is presumably as if the injured striker is out no (well pretty much) runs are scored from the delivery, so it makes sense that if he can be out off a delivery then his dismissal will always take precedence over his runner's possible method of dismissal.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: Runners « Result #26 on Jun 23, 2010, 2:07am »
If an injured striker misses the ball and the bails are removed by the keeper with both the injured striker and his runner out of their ground, is he out stumped or run-out?
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: ball tampering « Result #30 on Jun 21, 2010, 12:24am »
I assume that the you tube link is Afridi confusing the ball with an apple? If so my colleagues and I when addressed shortly after the incident were told that the umpires were incorrect not to award the 5 penalty runs. A look at the ICC regulations confirms this. The only changes to Law 42.3 appear to be 1) that on the second offence the bowler who bowled the preceding delivery will not have to be replaced. 2) That it is reported to the match referee who is to take action against the player(s) involved, or if unidentified to take action against the captain and 3)if the balls needs to be replaced, the batsmen at the wicket will choose the replacement from a selection of 6 balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) as correctly stated in an earlier post. If I am incorrect about the 5 penalty runs I would be grateful if someone could point me in the general direction of the playing conditions that relate to it.
Re: Double Bounce Deliveries « Result #31 on Jun 18, 2010, 9:54pm »
I can't help with information about feeder leagues, but I can tell you ECB have told our League we can carry on as we are until next season. It would be inappropriate to change our Playing Conditions at this stage of the season.
Unfortunately not. I and one or two others are clear what it means, but our league takes a different view from us (and ECB). It would therefore be helpful to hear if anyone else has taken the view that it should cover feeder leagues.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Melbourne Karma: 0
Re: Leg Byes « Result #33 on Jun 18, 2010, 2:06am »
Thanks for that Wisden, I hadn't seen that. I will pass it on. I have just received my new shiny 2010 laws which has a rewrite of 26.2 making it a lot easier to understand, and moving the reference to the ball hitting the bat so that in the above example it is now very clear in the laws that no runs will be awarded apart from the no ball penalty if called.
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 81 Location: Buckinghamshire Karma: 1
Double Bounce Deliveries « Result #35 on Jun 17, 2010, 11:28am »
We received an email this week from our league with an edict from ECB and it's caused some confusion. The document itself suggests that bouble-bounces are outlawed in Premier Leagues and various ECB competitions but the covering email said that "the attached Generic Playing Condition is to be implemented in all ECB Recreational Competitions". My feeder league has said it thinks that it will apply at all levels in the league but we are seeking clarification.
Does anyone else out there know anything further?What are other leagues doing?What are your views about how this will work out in lower echelons with teams containing a mixture of colts, old lags and incompetents?
Re: Changes to the laws « Result #36 on Jun 16, 2010, 11:30pm »
No truth in that goforit.
The only changes to Laws 42.6 and 42.7 (which deal with beamers) are very minor ones aimed at tidying up the laws (so for example, 'umpire at the bowler's end' is going to change to 'bowler's end umpire).
What it may be is that the league or something like that is planning on changing their regulations to what you suggest. I know that most of the leagues I umpire in they have this special regulation.
Re: Changes to the laws « Result #37 on Jun 16, 2010, 8:15pm »
It was suggested to me the other day that Law 42 had or was to be changed so that a high full pitch ball would be a no ball irrespective of speed if it was above waist high. Above shoulder high for slow bowlers was or would be no more. I have not been able to find anything to support this suggestion. If it is correct I'm sure one of you will know.
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 81 Location: Buckinghamshire Karma: 1
Re: Resuscitation Shield « Result #38 on Jun 16, 2010, 2:39pm »
This and the post by Acumen about heart attacks in this thread gets me wondering whether we should have a 'Health and Safety' section - but under a name less tarnished than H & S. Over to you Acumen!
... Regardless of umpiring - what if a loved one started to choke or have a heart attack....
This made me think back a couple of weeks. I'd had a hernia operation 2 or 3 days earlier when my wife started to choke at the meal table (NOT my cooking!). I was just trying to get into position to carry out the Heimlich manouevre when fortunately the obstruction cleared. I now see that Heimlich isn't recommended and it might be useful for anyone interested to look at this page.
Re: Leg Byes « Result #39 on Jun 16, 2010, 1:58pm »
Hi Reggie,
Subsequent to my original answer on this, the MCC have published some Questions & Answers on Law 26 (which are questions received by the MCC Laws Sub-Committee, and answered by them).
Re: Leg Byes « Result #40 on Jun 15, 2010, 11:30pm »
I don't think calling it dead ball is the correct call - also the opinion of National Panel umpires in my state. Law 26.2 clearly also states " ...... and the ball makes no subsequent contact with the bat" The common sense rule has to apply here. If the batsman can be out caught from it then its reasonable to expect he should also be awarded any runs from the bat. IMHO
![[Search This Thread]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Reply]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif "[Reply]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/avatars/boyandpc.gif "[avatar]")
![[Quote]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif "[Quote]")
Logged
Author
