|
Post by viswajith on Oct 12, 2012 14:07:39 GMT
a situation.....hours of play 9.30-12,12.40-2.40,3.00-4.30......2 fielders A and B were late in arriving - absent at 9.30 ... at 10.00 A came on to the field and at 10.02 play stopped due to rain... B arrives at the ground at 10:15 play resumed at 10.32 and B came on with the side... will A get the concession of interruption time??? when can A and B bowl?? please share your thoughts
regards Viswajith
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 14, 2012 6:35:56 GMT
I assume both A and B return with the side... A Absence from field -30m presence on field +02 min (-28m nett when he left for rain break) Made up by +30 min set-off for unscheduled break 30 min -Nett +02m Hence, can bowl immediately. (If A has not come in at 10:32, he loses this right to set-off.) B Absence from field -32m Set-off for unscheduled break +30m Must spend 2m on field before he can bowl again.
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Oct 14, 2012 9:35:18 GMT
Agreed. It's irrelevant, and not necessarily for the umpires to check, when someone arrives at the ground. As long as he joins his side on the resumption, he's entitled to credit the entire time of the interruption.
|
|
|
Post by viswajith on Oct 15, 2012 2:14:32 GMT
mrsinghIndia: sir,actually in this case 'A' returned earlier naa??ie,before the interuption..not at the resumption after interruption....then will he get that benefit?my understanding of the law is that any one who 'returns' at the resumption will get that benefit....Am i wrong??please clarify
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 23, 2012 15:58:34 GMT
Mr. Viswajith Must admit to have answered your query in some haste. The generally accepted view is that A doesn't get the benefit of the length of the unscheduled break. Tom Smith examples also support this view. But having given the earlier opinion, I see that a re-look at the relevant Law doesn't preclude such an interpretation. I'm open to correction on this.
|
|
|
Post by viswajith on Oct 24, 2012 2:54:11 GMT
i felt it as an anomaly in the law.....may be the MCC didnt gave much attention on this thing....right?
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Oct 24, 2012 7:46:31 GMT
Fielder A returns to the field (along with everyone else) after it's stopped raining. There's no anomaly in the Laws that I can see - the principle is that the fielding side shouldn't be excessively penalised for a delay that wasn't their fault, and the fact that everybody gets to rest while off the field means that the player who was late arriving gets no special benefit.
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 29, 2012 8:27:32 GMT
Vishwajith's concern here, Tippexii, is whether or not the benefit of set off of the duration of the unscheduled interval will be given to fielder A. B was off the field when the unscheduled interval occurred and 'returned' to the filed after the break. A was already on the field of play when the unscheduled interval occurred. He has already 'returned' to the field earlier from his substitution. Examples in Tom Smith and other places all the particular fielder being off and then 'returning' to the field after the end of the unscheduled break. What are your views on this?
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Oct 29, 2012 10:50:06 GMT
My view, for what it is worth, is that in accordance with Law 2.5(c)(iii) The time lost for an unscheduled break in play shall be counted as time on the field for ANY fielder who comes onto the field at the resumption of play. I understand that when it says any fielder, it means each and every one of them whether or not they have been absent for any length of time, regardless of when that absence occurred during that day's play. Hope that clears the point up (if you agree with me).
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 30, 2012 16:35:40 GMT
Quite appreciate the point, Gooders. But Viswajith has a problem. Here is a quote from the OLM... If an interruption forms part of the time the fielder was absent, then the time taken for the interruption not only does not count towards the time of his absence, it can count as time he was actually on the field, if he returns to the field as soon as the interruption is over . If he remains absent when the interruption is over , this concession does not apply . & Tom Smith says, 'In the situation when the player has left the field and while he is off, an unscheduled break occurs any penalty time he has accumulated is affected by the action he takes when play resumes. there are two possible scenarios:...' Both these text books go on to give examples where the fielder is off when the interruption begins. Seems NOT to be what Law 2.5(c)(iii) has to say.
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Nov 8, 2012 8:09:10 GMT
Here is what the MCC has to say in answer to the specific question which has been the subject of this discussion: 2-C Interruption before fielder’s ‘penance time’ completed A player has been absent from the field for 35 minutes. He has been back on the field for 10 minutes when there is an interruption for rain. If he returns with the rest of the team at the end of the interruption, can he count the time taken for the interruption as part of his waiting time, or does Law 2.5(c)(iii) apply only to players who are off the field when the interruption begins? * To count the time of an interruption as time on the field of play – i.e. to be able to offset this time against waiting time – Law 2.5(c)(iii) lays down only two conditions. 1. The break in play must be an unscheduled interruption, not an arranged interval. 2. The player must return to the field on the resumption of play at the end of the interruption. Whenever these two conditions are satisfied, this section of Law will apply. In the example quoted, the player still has 25 minutes to wait when the interruption starts. If it lasts for 15 minutes, he will have 10 more minutes to wait on resumption of play. Settles the issue, I'm sure. But there has been some confusion, though. I wonder how this is applied in some countries. Any comments?
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Nov 8, 2012 9:21:58 GMT
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't that what I said in Post #8?
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Nov 8, 2012 12:16:35 GMT
gooders Precisely - I can't see the difficulty. If a fielder comes onto the field at the end of the interruption the length of that interruption reduces the time he/she has to wait before bowling (in other words as if he/she was on the field of play) whether or not he/she was absent at the start of the interruption.
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Nov 8, 2012 16:49:38 GMT
Your view about this has been clear, Gooders. Have answered the question in the same way in the first place. The difficulty, as pointed out, is the way our revered text books on the Laws - Tom Smith & the OLM - (Also, a NZ instructional presentation that I have says the same) are interpreting and teaching this aspect of the Law. What is correct?
|
|
|
Post by viswajith on Nov 21, 2012 5:45:15 GMT
friends...one more doubt related to this....12-12.30 a fielder absent...12.30 innings ends and enforced follow on...fielder came in only at 12.50...will this both add together???when can he bowl?share your valuable views please
|
|