|
Post by lancia85 on Dec 20, 2012 21:30:11 GMT
What is the order of precedence when considering an LBW & HIT WICKET that happened in the same delivery? I found info re caught & Bowled, LBW & Caught & Caught & Hit the ball twice, but had no luck with this. Does anyone know if there is anything in training manuals? eg. Open Learning etc?
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Dec 21, 2012 9:34:01 GMT
After Bowled then Caught, Law 43 says (my version) it is the order in which things happen.
|
|
Mike
Junior Contributor
Posts: 4
|
Post by Mike on Dec 22, 2012 11:17:27 GMT
Different methods of dismissal, but a similar thing happened to me today so awaiting others opinions, yesterday I would have agreed with gooders, but today it worked the other way so...
I was standing at the Strikers End, ball was bowled, batsmen left his ground, goes through to the keeper who whips off the bails. All the fielders and bowler turn to me and appeal, I give him out, turns out the bowlers end umpire was happy to give him out LBW as it hit the pad on the way through.
I didn't see the other umpire put his finger up, at the break we were asked how to record it, were both newish umpires so after a discussion decided to record it as stumped, as that is what they obviously appealed for, was this right? wrong? misguided?
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Dec 22, 2012 13:07:15 GMT
Hard to argue that it's definitively wrong, given that there's nothing in the Laws. I would personally agree with others that the LBW, happening first, should take precedence over the stumping, but others (including a stat-hungry keeper) could legitimately disagree.
The nightmare scenario is one where this makes a difference - eg a batsman hit on the pad for a valid LBW decision with no appeal, followed by an appeal for a run out on the 2nd or 3rd leg bye. Happily (as far as I know) this is hypothetical only.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Dec 22, 2012 16:34:56 GMT
Do we have to keep going round in circles? How many different answers do you want to hear, or are you waiting until somebody agrees with your erroneous view? You could always write to the M.C.C. As the custodians of the laws, somebody on the laws committee should be able to give you the answer you need. Even then, I feel somebody might query it.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Dec 22, 2012 17:06:05 GMT
I agree with Gooders - we could think of no end of hypothetical situations.
As a rule of thumb I'd say that, if there's nothing in the Laws to say that one dismissal takes precedence over another, take whichever comes first. If you wish to justify that line the ball becomes dead once there's a dismissal unless the Laws say otherwise. And the dismissal happens when the event occurs, not when the umpire gives a decision
Make a decision and stick to it and don't be swayed by somebody who wants something different just to improve his figures for the end of the season
|
|
|
Post by lancia85 on Dec 23, 2012 2:31:28 GMT
The lbw & hit wicket together was real & the lbw & stumped together appears real too. So there is no doubt the batsman here is 'out' under 2 laws, but 'dismissed' only when given out by the umpire who puts his finger up first. Since comments here agree that as there is no precedence mentioned in the Laws, when considering LBW & HIT WICKET & LBW & STUMPED, that the batman is then 'dismissed' only by the umpire who answers the appeal. If both umpires both answer the appeal simultaneously, they should consult & take the 'out' that happened first & the appropriate umpire should 'dismiss' the batsman. Does the above process appear reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Dec 23, 2012 6:41:14 GMT
What's wrong, didn't get the answer you wanted so got to try it a different way? You can't change the laws just because they don't suit you.
|
|
|
Post by lancia85 on Dec 23, 2012 7:23:49 GMT
What makes you think that I am attempting to change the Laws? I think we are all in agreement about the Laws. I only wanted to clarify the process when the discussed senario takes place.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Dec 23, 2012 11:21:08 GMT
It appears that, even though you get an answer from experienced umpires you aren't satisfied. I just hope you don't seem so indecisive when you umpire a match.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Dec 23, 2012 19:07:07 GMT
Gentlemen Please don't let this discussion get out of hand! We're here to help one another and exchange experiences so let's avoid being personal.
The original question was about order of precedence; if you go back to the Laws and what they say it's usually somewhere there - and so it is in this case.In other words the second incident happens when the ball is dead. It follows that, if the ball struck the pad before the batsman broke the wicket it's LBW (and vice versa). Whether the square leg umpire puts his finger up first is irrelevant - it's not a race and the mode of dismissal is determined by the time sequence.
|
|
|
Post by SUHAS SAPRE on Dec 27, 2012 11:29:26 GMT
Sir,
Its a good topic to discuss and share our views so that MCC can learn the views of interested people who have posted their views here. Views are important to get the better conclusion of any incident. Most people are knowledgeable and also must be standing in matches to enable to share their views.
I am one of them to share my views here from my experience.
Laws pertaining to dismissals, except Law: 31 timed out, are arranged in such a way that they should be considered as they happen first. Suppose a batsman got the edge onto his bat and while on the way to WK, the ball also happens to dislodge the bails before it is taken by WK. So here Law 30 (Bowled) has precedence over Law: 32 caught.
Similarly even though a batsman is out LBW, if the ball goes on to hit the stumps and dislodges the bails, he is always out Bowled and not LBW.
If a batsman is caught behind and at the same time he is stumped by the batsman, he is always out Caught, and not stumped.
If a batsman is out LBW, but in the process he has put down his wicket with his bat or his person he is always out 'Hit wicket" and not LBW
So rules are very specific and in order. The dismissals are arranged in such a way that they should be considered in the same fashion. They are arranged alphabetically, except for Law 31: Timed out.
Hope I may be right or wrong, but I have tried to put as per my knowledge about the game and umpiring.
I am open for correction and can be corrected if I am wrong any where.
Suhas Sapre (Baroda 27/12/2012)
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Dec 30, 2012 13:14:52 GMT
Actually the Laws relating to dismissal are arranged in alphabetic order with the exception of Timed Out and NOT in priority order.
Please register before posting comments so that I can send private comments such as these rather than publicly.
|
|
gully
Regular Contributor
Posts: 14
|
Post by gully on Jan 4, 2013 11:56:28 GMT
Actually the Laws relating to dismissal are arranged in alphabetic order with the exception of Timed Out and NOT in priority order. Please register before posting comments so that I can send private comments such as these rather than publicly. Hate to disagree but I am certain there is an order of precedence A batsman is dismissed - given out - if there is an appeal from at least one member of the fielding side and the umpire gives him out, or if he himself decides to leave the wicket - in effect 'giving himself out'. There are ten ways in which a batsman can be dismissed by an umpire - Bowled, Caught, Leg before wicket (LBW), Run out, Stumped, Obstructing the field, Hit wicket, Hit the ball twice, Handled the ball, and Timed out. (clearly not alphabetical) There is an order of precedence for dismissals. If, say, the ball first hits the striker's pad, then his bat, then breaks the wicket, and is finally caught by the wicket-keeper then, assuming other conditions are met, he is out three ways - LBW, Bowled and Caught. But he is dismissed Bowled, because that takes precedence over the others. But really it's something for the scorers & staticians to worry about as umpire it only matters to me the that the player has been dismissed
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jan 4, 2013 21:52:13 GMT
Yes there is an order of precedence. Bowled then Caught then as it happens.......................... Oh why am I bothering?
|
|