|
Post by Acumen on Apr 2, 2014 17:14:53 GMT
There is an argument over the changes to wording as regards an Injured Striker being Run Out off a No Ball.
The simple situation is that the umpire calls No Ball. The Keeper takes the ball and breaks the wicket. The Injured Striker is within his ground BUT the runner is carelessly lounging just outside. Clearly the Striker, per se, cannot be Stumped. However, we have always taught that the Runner could be Run Out is such circumstances - after all his sole purpose is to run even if he is just meandering.
Does the latest version of the wording actually prevent the runner from being out if he is clearly not making an attempt to run although he is out of his ground?
The commentary does not explicitly say there is a policy change. Laws 2, 38 and 39.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Apr 3, 2014 7:56:28 GMT
As I read it the injured striker has extra protection from being 'run out' off a no-ball.
Previously (off a no-ball) the injured striker would be out run out if he was out of his ground playing a shot, even though he would be not out if he had no runner, as you can't be stumped off a no-ball.
Now if he plays and misses, lifting his back foot out of his ground, he is not assumed to be attempting a run and therefore is still not out.
Please can others clarify if I've misunderstood this too?
|
|
|
Post by Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh on Apr 3, 2014 9:16:45 GMT
A batsman with a runner is now protected if he is ‘stumped’ off a No ball ( provided his runner is in his ground ).
Previously, he would have been out "run out" even when WK breaks the wicket on NO Ball when striker was out of his ground even when 1. he is not attempting run and 2. his runner is in his ground
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Apr 3, 2014 10:14:47 GMT
In response to the specific question Acumen asks, I don't believe there is any ambiguity. The new wording of Law 2.8.e specifically refers to the injured striker himself, and is designed to give him the same protection as an uninjured striker from being Run Out in these circumstances from a No Ball (see the MCC explanatory notes: "Law 2.8(e) covers the instance of an injured striker (with a runner) being stumped off a No ball. Now, he should be afforded the same protection as a “normal” batsman, and not be penalised for, essentially, being injured.").
The key to this Law is the provision that he only receives this immunity BOTH of two conditions are met, the applicable one here being that "his runner is within his ground". Thus the existing interpretation continues to apply—that the runner's sole purpose is to run, and if he is out of his ground he is, by definition, attempting to run.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Apr 3, 2014 11:51:54 GMT
As I read it the injured striker has extra protection from being 'run out' off a no-ball. Previously (off a no-ball) the injured striker would be out run out if he was out of his ground playing a shot, even though he would be not out if he had no runner, as you can't be stumped off a no-ball. Sorry Missing Leg - this was never the case. The Law has always been clear that an Injured Striker (himself) had full protection against what would have been considered a Stumping off a No Ball. It cannot be interpreted as Run Out - exactly the same as if he were not injured. My question purely concerns the position of the Runner.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Apr 3, 2014 13:13:21 GMT
Okay thanks. I read on the MCC website on this page www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/law-changes-2013-explained/'A batsman with a runner is now protected if he is ‘stumped’ off a No ball. Previously, he would have been out run out' I took it to mean otherwise. I'm sure we'll clear it up in our pre-season meeting on law changes to save any controversy. Thanks I'm grateful for this forum!
|
|