Should the run be allowed?

[srinivasan]

Before I ask my question I will explain a real scenario.

Batting side requires 8 runs to win with 7 balls in hand. The striker is a well settled batsman and the non-striker is no 11 batsman. In the last ball of the penultimate over, the striker plays the ball and calls for a quick run. The non-striker responds and the two batsmen cross over. The non-striker reaches the striker's end but places the bat "on" the crease. Umpire at the bowler's end calls "over" and the two batsmen walk to the middle to have a quick discussion. The Umpire at the striker's end notices that the non-striker has not fully grounded himself or his bat. There is no further action from the fielding side.

What should the striker's end Umpire do now? Should he allow or disallow the run? Who should face the first ball of the last over?

[gooders]

Give one good reason why Law 18.3(a) should not apply, and I might agree that the run should be disallowed.

[wisden17]

I'd do precisely nothing. The run counts. The key law is Law 18.10(b)(ii). The call of over is made when the ball is dead (Law 23.3) so we have a situation here where the ball is dead, the batsmen have crossed before the ball became dead, so the run is scored. Equally as they've crossed they remain at the ends we would expect them to. The run however has not been completed (due to the lack of grounding of the bat).

Do bear in mind, of course, that you cannot have a short run when only one run is attempted, so Law 18.3(a) would not apply!

[chiggers]

I regularly used to run short at the striker's end; I usually batted about six inches outside the popping crease and if I saw that the ball was being returned to the non-strikers end and there was no danger of the ball coming up to my end I would simply take my guard again outside the line. Not one umpire ever raised it as an issue - in fact I doubt that they even noticed it.

[gooders]

May 5, 2013 0:39:11 GMT wisden17 said:

Do bear in mind, of course, that you cannot have a short run when only one run is attempted, so Law 18.3(a) would not apply!

What do you mean it would not apply? That is exactly what it means, though it says it in a different way.

[Acumen]

Law 18.3 (a) A run is short if a batsman fails to make good his ground in turning for a further run.

Hence it cannot apply if only one run is attempted.

[missingleg]

I think that's what Gooders was getting at...the law applies insofar as it's saying you cannot run short on a single.

[gooders]

Precisely my point there missingleg. To say that laws cannot apply is nonsense. If they don't apply, why are they included in the law book? Or is it just so that someone can be picky and say that doesn't apply in this hypothetical circumstance.

[sillypoint]

Of course all Laws APPLY, but not in every situation that arises in a game. Law 18.3 ONLY comes into play "on turning for a further run" (18.3.a). The only real question, as far as the Laws go, is whether the provisions of 18.1.a have been met … but I have yet to meet an umpire who has disallowed a run in these circumstances!

[wisden17]

Law 18.3(a) would not APPLY. I'm not going to take this thread off its original topic, but I'd suggest certain people invest in a dictionary and perhaps look at the various definitions of the word 'apply', you'll see its a perfectly apt choice of word for this circumstance!

Gooders, I misread your first post on this topic, apologies, and see exactly what you mean now.

[srinivasan]

Thank you gooders, wisden17, chiggers, Acumen, missingleg and sillypoint for your posts. The scenario posted was a real one and not a hypothetical circumstance.

I do understand from the discussions that one would do nothing, as Law 18.10 (b) (ii) would apply here.

[Acumen]

Whilst your particular score is unusual, I would hazard a guess that the basic situation occurs at least once in almost every match.

Namely that the batsmen take an easy single at the end of an over and do not make good their ground before the next delivery.