|
|
Post by Acumen on Sept 5, 2012 21:32:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Sept 6, 2012 0:34:09 GMT
1. I don't think I'd have given him out hit wicket as he did not break the stumps setting off for his first run immediately after playing the ball. He had done that and decided to stop. Definitely not out for me.
2. Common sense should prevail here. The error would be fairly evident to all on the field and reversing the decision in order to get the correct outcome is the best option.
3. How on earth can he possibly be out bowled if the ball didn't hit the stumps? If, and only if the flattening of the stumps by the non-striker was clearly deliberate, someone would be given out obstructing the field on appeal. I'm not sure who is out though, as the striker is out if the act prevents a catch, but i don't remember anything in the laws about preventing being bowled. You'd have to be pretty confident that the ball would have landed on the stumps too - a fairly small target from above, so I'd probably give the non-striker out - if it was a deliberate act.
As always I stand to be corrected and look forward to further posts on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldapplejack on Sept 7, 2012 15:19:51 GMT
I don't see how Mr Holder can say that 1. is a clear case of hit wicket. I thought HW can only take place in a very specific time frame, ie in making the shot and setting off for his first run. This time frame has passed, so not out for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 13, 2012 18:12:56 GMT
1. ... he did not break the stumps setting off for his first run immediately after playing the ball ... Definitely not out for me. 2. Common sense should prevail ... reversing the decision in order to get the correct outcome is the best option. 3. How on earth can he possibly be out bowled if the ball didn't hit the stumps? If, and only if the flattening of the stumps by the non-striker was clearly deliberate, someone would be given out obstructing the field on appeal. I'm not sure who is out though, as the striker is out if the act prevents a catch, but i don't remember anything in the laws about preventing being bowled. You'd have to be pretty confident that the ball would have landed on the stumps too - a fairly small target from above, so I'd probably give the non-striker out - if it was a deliberate act. 1. I agree totally 2. Ditto 3. I agree he couldn't be bowled and that the only decision has to be a dismissal for obstruction of the field. However - and even though the Laws don't specifically cover this specifically - I'd be inclined to give the striker out following the principle relating to obstruction preventing a catch. I suspect that there's never been such an occurrence which is why there's this gap in the Laws. It seems wrong that the non-striker wouldn't get his come-uppance but if the action of flattening the stumps is construed as deliberate surely a report would be called for as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Sept 14, 2012 0:58:52 GMT
Yes John, I think we can assume that this is most unlikely to happen. One could also ask where the wicket keeper was in all of this. If the non-striker had time to get to the other end while the ball was in the air, I think the keeper would most likely be making a fair attempt at catching the thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Sept 14, 2012 5:32:31 GMT
If I may contribute my two bits to the discussion:
1. Certainly Not Out as explained by other contributors.
2. I tend to agree with Holder on this issue. In how many instances, on an average day, will we carry this 'common sense overrides law or a principle established in Law'? There can be various situations, no-ball missed, no ball wrongly given, catch floored, caught behind, edge on to bat - LBW, where it is clear to all on the field except the umpire giving the decision that a mistake is made. We still take things in our stride, put it behind one and carry on, since 'The umpire's decision is final'. It certainly appeals to one's sensibilities that the right thing has been done. But such a thing can go too far. Reversing decisions may not be the answer.
3. Working on the basis that I will apply the Law as it is and not as I think it should be, in the particular case, I would give the non-striker out 'Obstructing The Field', there being no provision to extend the rule established in the matter of obstructing a catch to this obstruction of 'Bowled' and the Law doesn't provide for it because it never envisaged that a 'bowled' could be obstructed maybe, as perhaps rightly pointed out, it stretches the imagination a bit. I would also invoke Law 42.2 and report.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Nov 16, 2012 20:47:44 GMT
I made my opinion of this book known in an earlier discussion, and this set of examples does nothing to change that. For the record:
1. The batsman is clearly responding to his partner's call of NO; thus his action is not part of "setting off for his first run immediately after playing, or playing at, the ball" (35.1.a). Law 35.2 further makes his actions clearly not liable to dismissal under this Law.
2. Unfortunate, but not unfair; if No Ball is not called by the umpire, then it is not a No Ball (except now, in Test cricket under the DRS!)
3. The only dismissal possible in the circumstances described would be Obstructing the Field. I'm afraid Mr Holder's logic is completely astray on this one—out Bowled, for goodness sake?
|
|
