Out Run out or Not out ?

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

Consider a scenario :

On a fairly delivered ball striker steps down to hit it but ends with missing it. Ball touches the WK's helmet. Ball's final contact is with WK's gloves before it put down the wicket. At this time Striker is out of his ground not attempting run.

There is an appeal... what will be your decision ?

clearly as the ball touches the helmet, stumping will no more be possible but is this failed stumping will simply convert into run out ?

law 39.2b is the key. Want to know your views on this.

Thank
Mayur Wankhade

[tippex2]

He's out, Run Out. He's out of his ground while the wicket's been broken fairly - the gloves count as "subsequent contact between the ball and any fielder".

In practical terms, without the benefit of TV replays, I suspect it would be very difficult to be sure of the sequence of events with the ball pinging from helmet to gloves to stumps, but from a theoretical standpoint, there's no particular difficulty.

[sillypoint]

If the bowler's end umpire's eyes are tracking the ball—and they should be—he/she should be able to see the various contacts the ball has made with helmet then gloves then stumps. There is likely to be some change of direction in each case and there could also be accompanying noises to add to the information you can base your decision on. The striker's end umpire, whose decision it is, may not have detected all the contact points as he/she should be focussed on the position of the striker, so may need to consult the other umpire before making a decision, especially if he/she detected the contact with helmet but is unsure about the subsequent contact with the keeper's gloves.

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

thanks tippex2 and sillypoint.

For the same case if it is a NO ball , then striker will also not be out run out... right ?

[sillypoint]

Correct! Ref Law 38.1.b and 38.2.b.ii

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

yes ! got it , thanks !

[missingleg]

How about this scenario, would you give it out or not out:

The ball is in play. The batsman is out of his ground. The base of his bat is grounded within his ground as the batsman's index finger is pressing on the top of the bat handle (to keep the bat from falling). The wicket is put down; there is an appeal.

[gooders]

I would say that since he has not got a hand holding the bat, he should be considered out of his ground just as much as he would be if his bat were leaning against his leg, wit the blade of the bat within his ground. He is out. Whether it will be stumped or run out would be the question.

[missingleg]

I'd agree, but it would cause controversy! It'll probably never happen but the wording of the law ought to be looked at (from a pedant's perspective!).

[sillypoint]

I have to take issue with Gooders here. As always, the Laws have it covered. "Held in batsman’s hand. Contact between a batsman’s hand, or glove worn on his hand, and any part of the bat shall constitute the bat being held in that hand." (Laws of Cricket, Appendix D). In other words, the Laws require only "contact", not any sort of grip, for the bat to be considered as being held. Therefore your answer to the appeal is Not Out.

[nazmulahsan]

The bowler is permited to attempt run out of non striker before completing his delivery swing. My question is when the delivery swing is complited?

[sillypoint]

The delivery swing only comes into things in the ICC version of this law. Under the Laws of Cricket the critical moment is "before entering his delivery stride" (Law 42.15).

[nompere]

Quote

"He's out, Run Out. He's out of his ground while the wicket's been broken fairly - the gloves count as "subsequent contact between the ball and any fielder"

Unquote

This means it is a case of Run Out. So even if it is a No Ball, the batsman shouldn't be given Out i.e., Run Out as Stumped Out is no more in picture here ?

[sillypoint]

Re: "So even if it is a No Ball, the batsman shouldn't be given Out i.e., Run Out as Stumped Out is no more in picture here"

The above is incorrect. The quote you give from tippex2 (from May 6th) is correct—the batsman is Out. The striker only receives the protection of "not attempting a run" (Law 38.2.b.ii) if the delivery is a No Ball. In the example cited the delivery is fair, so although he cannot be out Stumped because the ball has touched the keeper's helmet (ref 39.2.b) the subsequent contact with the keeper's gloves means that he is still out Run Out, because he was out of his ground when the wicket was put down (ref 38.1).

[tippex2]

Assuming the batsman's not deemed to be attempting a run, he can't be run out by the wicket-keeper alone off a no-ball. Law 38.2(b)(ii).