|
|
Post by nompere on Nov 7, 2014 9:39:50 GMT
At the fall of a wicket, the incoming batsman steps onto the
field and takes guard within two minutes. But he then realizes he has two gloves of the same hand and has to call in for a proper pair of gloves. When he is ready to face his first ball, it is nearly 4 minutes from the fall of the wicket and the fielding captain appeals for timed out. So in this case as an umpire what should be our call ?
Give him Out Timed Out as he was not ready to receive or taken guard to face the next deliery even after 4 mins of dismissal of previous batsman or should fall under waste of time by batsman although it was not deliberate ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Nov 7, 2014 10:44:46 GMT
I wouldn't come close to giving that out (and this from someone who had his first timed out dismissal this past season). If nothing else, the batsman's "taken guard" which is the requirement in the Laws to avoid being timed out.
If you were suspicious that the glove mix-up was deliberate, then it's possible to invoke the 'time-wasting' provisions of Law 42, but there's no way that I'd think that timing someone out was appropriate for a mishap like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Nov 7, 2014 12:04:37 GMT
This looks more appropriate way to handle this situation. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Nov 7, 2014 21:18:49 GMT
I'm with tippex2 on this, but for one quibble. Having "taken guard" is NOT "the requirement in the Laws". The Law actually says "in position to take guard" (31.1.a).
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Nov 8, 2014 12:19:37 GMT
I agree with sillypoint.
On an allied matter I had an occasion this last season where two wickets fell quite quickly - the second was during the over preceding a drinks break and members of the batting side rushed on with drinks. I turned them back and it later transpired that the next batsman had been in the toilet when the wicket fell; in the event he was within time so there was no problem.
Normally in our league we allow the break as it assists the fielding side to maintain its over rate but it does show the sense of tippez2's warning to be on the lookout for sharp practice. Have others had similar experiences?
|
|
|
|
Post by puzzled on May 18, 2016 18:00:26 GMT
After waiting three minutes the umpires decide to call "Time" and leave the field to investigate.
As they cross the boundary, a batsman comes hurrying on to the pitch.
The fielding side appeal.
What do the umpires do if:
(a) batsman apologises and explains reasonably (eg several quick wickets, not enough pairs of pads, caught on toilet)
(b) it is clear the batting side are deliberately trying to waste time ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Antipodean on May 19, 2016 0:34:27 GMT
Dont take this as gospel, I'm still reasonably new, im sure more experienced minds will post. But to my way of thinking, once the call of time has been made by the umpires, the appeal can no longer be considered. This is in line with both Law27 (Appeals) and Law31 (Timed Out). If it was deliberate then you could apply the process of Law 42.10...
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on May 19, 2016 13:50:54 GMT
A few things to keep in mind here:
1. The umpires have waited 3 minutes, as per Law 31.1.a, and then called Time. If the fielding side had appealed before the call of Time then the incoming batsman would be given out, but in the example as described there had been no appeal, and thus there would be no dismissal.
2. Because the consequence is significant, the umpires should not be too hasty in calling Time, but rather be fairly obvious about checking the time together so that when you do call it, it does not take everyone by surprise. That gives the fielding side a reasonable opportunity to appeal if they are alert to the situation.
3. The reason for calling Time is that the umpires must leave the field of play in order to investigate whether the "protracted delay" by the batting side constitutes a refusal to play. They are not going off to decide whether a batsman could be given out Timed out. Clearly the provision of that Law has already been met—note that the reason for the delay is not relevant to Law 31. The only consideration is whether there has been a timely appeal.
4. In the instance described, the umpires would also have to remember to extend playing time by the length of the delay (from their call of Time until play resumes). Obviously the action does not constitute a refusal to play, since the incoming batsman is hurrying on, so a concise explanation to the batting captain, and subsequently the fielding captain—including explaining that the appeal came too late to be considered, is all that would be needed, to make sure everyone understands the action taken.
|
|
