over throw

[viswajith]

how can one define an over throw?especially when it comes to the case of ball lawfully struck more than once.....as we know,runs can only result from an overthrow....in this case,by what time the throw can be considered as over throw?

[gooders]

Consider the ball thrown when it leaves the fielder's hand when he is in the act of throwing the ball. Quite straightforward really!

[viswajith]

thats ok Gooders....thats not what i meant....when will that throw be considered as an overthrow?if it just fumbles out of wk's gloves/hit the stumps directly.......will you allow run in this case???simply at what time we can consider a throw as an overthrow??i hope everyone understood the casi i meant

[gooders]

If the ball is lawfully struck more than once........to the wicket keeper, only a complete idiot would consider taking a run in the first place. If the ball hits the stumps directly, then he has not done a very good job at defending the ball from hitting his wicket, and he deserves to be out bowled. If the w.k. drops the ball onto the stumps and the batsman is out of his ground, then he will be out stumped. Could you please try again to explain what your problem is so that we can give you the answer you are seeking.

[Mike]

I'm only new to umpiring, so I am more than willing to be proven wrong and probably shouldn't take this as gospel, but my $0.02

The throw would never be considered an overthrow, an overthrow implies that the fielder/keeper had control at some point. Ie, they gather the ball, aim and throw. In your case the keeper never really had control of the ball, as such the batsmen are more than able to go for a run. If they had taken off for a run the batsmen would be out Run Out, if they were just outside their ground it would be out stumped.

[jaybee]

Surely the first thing to remember - and what Mike implies - is that an overthrow can only come from a deliberate act of one of the fielding side. If it's a misfield or fumble nothing changes as that's a 'normal' part of the action.

• Ball is thrown in and keeper/bowler misses it and batsmen start to run
  
• Ball is thrown in, it cannons off the stumps and batsmen start to run (essentially the same scenario)
  
• A fielder deliberately kicks the ball over the boundary to keep the batsmen at their original ends. This happened in an England - Australia match (but I'm too lazy to look it up and confirm my facts so if anyone can give the reference please do).
• Before the Laws changed it used to be possible for the batsmen to sneak a run after a fielder lobbed the ball too high when returning it to the bowler (provided of course that it hadn't been made dead by a return to the keeper and the fielders were off guard). In the 'hit the ball twice' case that is a likely event.
  Nowadays some would consider it sharp practice and the umpire might consider that both sides had regarded the ball as dead but in theory it could happen.

From all this I think it emerges that an overthrow comes into being when the batsmen start to take advantage of an intentional action by the fielding side which somehow gives them a scoring opportunity which wasn't there to start with.
At the end of the day it's a question of fact and therefore entirely a decision for the umpire on the spot.

[viswajith]

thank you jaybee.....actually Gooders didnt get what i meant.....what am trying to ask is that the throw from the deep fumbles out of wk or hits the stumps directly.....will you allow run then in the case of ball lawfully struck more than once?at the instant of the throw batsmen didnt crossed and at the time ball hit stumps they are within thir grounds....i hope,now you all understood what i meant

[jaybee]

viswajith
Thank you for your comment.
Looking at it again I think most of what I said is OK but it doesn't quite cover one aspect, namely when a 'good' throw becomes an overthrow.
Once there's been a deliberate throw and it deflects after hitting the stumps or the keeper that's easy and it becomes a (potential) overthrow from that point.

• The first 'run' is disallowed
• the second is allowed as it results from an overthrow
• but this assumes that the umpire doesn't call 'Dead Ball' during the course of or at the end of the first.

I must admit that I'm not completely confident about this nor whether the batsmen should be made to swap ends when the chaos subsides - I'd be glad to hear what others think.

[viswajith]

i am still scratching my head......when i think more about it,lot of doubtful situations comes to my mind
anyway jaybee's reply is satisfying to an extent...thank you...

[mrsinghIndia]

To add to what Jaybee has had to say on the issue...
1. The umpire has no option. He has to call dead ball at the completion of one run. (Once the opportunity for Run Out is gone). But not if an overthrow has taken place, in which case play will be allowed to continue.

Here, in the situation described by Jaybee, I would call dead ball as soon as the batsmen made good their ground (with ball coming in to ricochet off the stumps). The situation of allowing overthrows is preempted.
Law 34.4.
b. if the batsmen run and
(i) neither batsman is dismissed and the ball does not become dead for any other reason, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as one run is completed
or the ball reaches the boundary
Would my action be in conformity with the Law? I think it would.
2. Batsmen returning to the wicket they have left... i.e, when several have been run and the first 'shall not count'
As far as my study of the Laws goes, wherever runs are 'disallowed', the batsmen will return. Wherever runs 'shall not count', batsmen remain where they are.
My suggestion to Viswajith is, if he is still scratching his head over the issue, would be to give 3 or 4 (too many?) actual 'doubtful' game situations with proper position of batsmen when throw took place. (Not too fictitious, please!)
Maybe some answers could be given.

[viswajith]

thank u mrsinghindia for your view...the doubtful point is that in the case of 'potential overthrow' as Jaybee said,run will be allowed only if batsmen didnt cross at the instant of the throw....in this case what is the 'instant of the throw'?

[mrsinghIndia]

There can never be any doubt about the 'instant of the throw', which is a physical reality and subject to surmise by anybody.

[mrsinghIndia]

I must apologize to the forum for a misleading statement in my earlier post of 13 Oct.
My corrections:
1. The portion of the Law quote is 34.5.b.i and not 34.4.b.i, as I have stated.
2. When no runs are to be permitted, only then, the umpire will halt play when one run is completed and the possibility of a run out has disappeared. He is not going to allow any runs in any case. (34.5.b.i)
3. If runs are to be permitted, the game will be allowed to continue if a throw has been made after the batsmen start to run and before the complete one run. Play will not be stopped when they complete one run. (34.c). 34.4 says 'overthrow'. Maybe it could be read as 'throw'?

[jaybee]

mrsinghIndia is correct and I'm sorry that I didn't think before making my previous post and said "but this assumes that the umpire doesn't call 'Dead Ball' " which he is required to do - and, of course, the batsmen should also be asked to return to their original ends.