Out or Not Out

[johnfgolding]

Imagine the scenario.

The bowler bowls, the batsman snicks it, the keeper catches the ball and removes the bails thinking the batsman out of his ground.
The fielding side appeals to the strikers end unpire who says not out (to the stumping). No member of the fielding side appeals to the umpire at the bowlers end who has clearly seen the catch.

What happens next?

[blackbeard]

The striker is out caught. The bowlers end umpire seeing the fair catch and hearing the appeal would have raised his finger.
An appeal of how's that shall cover all modes of dismissal.

[johnfgolding]

And then to see the look on the batsmans face as he thought he got away with one

[Number 6]

May 4, 2008 14:48:34 GMT @blackbeard said:

The striker is out caught. The bowlers end umpire seeing the fair catch and hearing the appeal would have raised his finger.
An appeal of how's that shall cover all modes of dismissal.

But the appeal has to be directed at the responsible umpire so if there was no further appeal it's not out.

[blackbeard]

But the appeal has to be directed at the responsible umpire so if there was no further appeal it's not out.

number 6 I refer you to the bottom of page 194 of Toms Smiths, I quote:

when a member of the fielding side makes an appeal it is deemed to be a general appeal which:

1) covers all possible methods of dismissal and
2) is directed at both umpires

[Number 6]

Hmmm, yes. I think I'm misinterpreting 27 (5):

5. Answering appeals
The umpire at the bowler's end shall answer all appeals except those arising out of any of Laws 35 (Hit wicket), 39 (Stumped) or 38 (Run out) when this occurs at the striker's wicket. A decision Not out by one umpire shall not prevent the other umpire from giving a decision, provided that each is considering only matters within his jurisdiction.

When a batsman has been given Not out, either umpire may, within his jurisdiction, answer a further appeal provided that it is made in accordance with 3 above.

I think that would apply the other way around but not in the sense that the original question was asked. If the appeal for the catch was not given then there would have to be a further appeal for the stumping.

[blackbeard]

May 7, 2008 10:11:30 GMT Number 6 said:

Hmmm, yes. I think I'm misinterpreting 27 (5):

5. Answering appeals
The umpire at the bowler's end shall answer all appeals except those arising out of any of Laws 35 (Hit wicket), 39 (Stumped) or 38 (Run out) when this occurs at the striker's wicket. A decision Not out by one umpire shall not prevent the other umpire from giving a decision, provided that each is considering only matters within his jurisdiction.

When a batsman has been given Not out, either umpire may, within his jurisdiction, answer a further appeal provided that it is made in accordance with 3 above.

I think that would apply the other way around but not in the sense that the original question was asked. If the appeal for the catch was not given then there would have to be a further appeal for the stumping.

page 196 EXAMPLE 3
The w-keeper catches the striker and then stumps him
If the catch is declined by the bowlers end umpire, the appeal for the stumping must be answered by the strikers end umpire. If both methods of dismissal are valid, the striker would be dismissed caught, since a catch takes precedence over every other dismissal other than bowled.

So the appeal must alway be answered by the bowlers end umpire and then if not out the strikers end. They should not have to appeal twice as an appeal of hows that covers all modes of dismissal.

[Number 6]

Then why does 27 (5) say:

"When a batsman has been given Not out, either umpire may, within his jurisdiction, answer a further appeal provided that it is made in accordance with 3 above."

If one appeal fits all then the situation of a further appeal should never arise so why does it state that?

[blackbeard]

Without wishing to causing offence, this further appeal would only come about if one of the umpires was day dreaming. Two competent umpires know what appeal falls in thier jurisdiction. If an appeal is made as in this case both umpires would raise thier fingers as they are answering appeals that falls in thier jurisdiction. The bowlers end umpire would then inform all that the striker is out caught.
On seeing the catch bowlers end umpire would signal out, standing at strikers en if an appeal is made and you see the striker out of his ground it is your duty to signal out?
You cannot expect the fielding side to state what they are appealing for, as one appeal covers all.

[wisden17]

No the point is if further events happen the disallowance of the 1st appeal doesn't disbar a 2nd appeal.

Pretty much common-sense, but needs to be written into the laws.

[johnfgolding]

However, in my limited experience, the fielding side getting no result from the strikers end umpire would automatically turn their attention (& appeal) to the bowlers end umpire.

[Number 6]

I really must check up on this. On every training course I've been on the question has cropped up thus (or similar):

"Say that wicket keeper has made a stumping attempt and an appeal is made to the bowlers end umpire - what happens?"

The answer from our trainers has always been:

"Give the batsman Not Out or say I cannot answer that appeal. If the fielding side wish then to appeal to the strikers end umpire that's up to them but if they don't then it's Not Out"

[tippexii]

I think the "second appeal" is intended to cover the situation where, for example, after a rejected LBW appeal, there's a potential run out as the batsmen run a leg bye

[jaybee]

Surely the 'second appeal' also covers the situation where there is a quiet appeal to one umpire or the other (it does happen). This would not be addressed to, nor heard by, his/her colleague so if the fielding side wanted a decision they would need to appeal again.
Of course usually there's a shout from all between deep third man and deep mid wicket such that even with hearing aid turned off any umpire in the same county would need to answer it!

[johnfgolding]

Now for the next conundrum.

The bowler bowls a legal delivery, the batsman snicks it, the keeper catches it.
How long before you decide if the keeper has full control of the catch?

i.e. In this scenario the ball ended up on the ground within a very short space of time.