|
Post by umpire50 on Apr 16, 2008 7:41:51 GMT
Law 24.15 makes it quite clear that a batsman can be out 'Obstructing the field' from a No ball.
As a batsman cannot be out 'caught' from a No ball, does anyone know whether a batsman ought to be given out when 'Obstructing a ball from being caught' (Law 37.3) from a No ball. Logic would say not but I can find no reference to this either in the Laws or in Tom Smith's. Have I missed something?
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Apr 16, 2008 9:34:20 GMT
Law 24.15 makes it quite clear that a batsman can be out 'Obstructing the field' from a No ball. As a batsman cannot be out 'caught' from a No ball, does anyone know whether a batsman ought to be given out when 'Obstructing a ball from being caught' (Law 37.3) from a No ball. Logic would say not but I can find no reference to this either in the Laws or in Tom Smith's. Have I missed something? This form of dismissal does not rely on the batsman preventing a dismissal (e.g. it covers a batsman returning the ball to a fielder without permission whilst it is still 'live'). It follows that - given that there has been wilful obstruction - someone is out. Should it be the striker? Clearly if he's the culprit he will be out, but if it was the non-striker the question remains. Although the reference in 37(3) is to preventing a 'catch' from being made, a batsman can't be caught - and therefore a catch can't be made - from a no-ball. Saying the striker is out when the offence was committed by the non-striker would seem to negate the penalty imposed by the call of no-ball. It would also suggest that a run completed before the obstruction would be disallowed, again contrary to what 'no-ball' implies. All in all I think that Law 43 suggests that it would be the non-striker who is out, if he caused the obstruction, and that any run scored (plus the no-ball penalty) should stand.
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on Apr 16, 2008 10:18:50 GMT
You cannot be Out caught from a NO ball, you can however be dismissed Run out, Obstructing the field, Hit the ball twice and Handled the ball. So if the striker shouted drop it from a NO ball he could not be given out Obstructing the catch, as NO ball is called the mode of dismissal Caught is not valid.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Apr 16, 2008 13:03:36 GMT
Either batsman can be Out Obstructing the Field. Whoever does the actual obstructing is Out, EXCEPT in the case where the non-striker prevents a catch from being made.
In the situation cited, the No Ball invalidates any possible catch, so any obstruction by the non-striker should result in the non-striker being given out.
Equally if the Striker shouts "drop it", then he should be given out because he has attempted to interfere with the fielding of the ball - it could go for a boundary or allow him time to complete a run.
|
|