|
Post by missingleg on Sept 28, 2009 17:52:12 GMT
Hello. Hope you all had an enjoyable season in some marginally better weather. A situation cropped up in the ICC Champions' Trophy yesterday where England won and it was reported that Strauss refused Smith (injured with cramp) a runner. BBC gives a short summary news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/8276363.stmCricinfo tells of why Strauss refused him a runner. www.cricinfo.com/iccct2009/content/current/story/427030.htmlThis has confused me. I always thought (and indeed it is written in the Laws) that the allowance of a substitute or runner is the umpires' decision, not the fielding captain's. Am I to infer that it is customary for the fielding captain to have some input in this decision making process? If so, how much? Also, why is cramp not considered to be an 'injury or illness'? Would anyone deny a batsman a runner for cramp? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Sept 28, 2009 21:30:40 GMT
I believe (without the benefit of any medical knowledge) that cramp is essentially a reaction to muscle fatigue - basically an advanced form of muscle tiredness. I think it's quite plausible to say that this isn't an injury as meant by the Laws, but a part of normal deterioration of physical condition as a batsman's innings progresses.
If the umpires are considering allowing a runner for "other acceptable reasons" then it's probably sensible to determine whether the fielding captain has an objection - however the final decision should rest with the umpires.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Sept 28, 2009 22:37:00 GMT
If I were a fielding captain in "normal" cricket, I would love to have a runner on the field - there are three people you can run out - and they do get easily confused.
All the fielders have to do is remove bails at both ends if they are not sure what is happening.
I guess this would apply even more in 20-20 - I guess the runner would be too eager to get off the mark and could easily be Run Out in a "stumping" situation (i.e. Injured Striker misses ball which is taken by keeper standing up).
Also the over-eager Injured Striker may leave his ground.
Very few players know what to do - but hopefully all umpires would.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Sept 30, 2009 16:22:00 GMT
Would you consult the fielding captain about runners and take his opinion on board? If so, to what extent are you giving him influence over what is the umpires' decision?
I find it a bit vague that runners and subs are allowed for 'injury or illness'. Anyone can say he's ill and any niggle/cramp/stitch/exhaustion can arguably fall under injury or illness.
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Jun 23, 2010 2:07:57 GMT
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?
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Jun 23, 2010 2:32:15 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Jun 23, 2010 4:42:42 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 23, 2010 15:30:00 GMT
... 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. 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 - 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.
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Jun 23, 2010 23:27:27 GMT
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. www.lords.org/data/files/law-2-qanda-9834.pdf MCC Laws Clarification 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).
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Jun 24, 2010 2:12:33 GMT
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!!
|
|