Stumpings without Bails

[missingleg]

You and your partner decide it's too windy to play with bails; you dispence with them.

The bowler bowls, the batsman plays forward and misses. The wicketkeeper taps the bail-less stumps with the ball. The batsman has his back foot grounded behind the popping crease. However, within a second the batsman overbalances and the wicketkeeper then taps the partially disturbed stumps with the ball again. The batsman is now out of his ground as his back foot is raised.

There is an appeal. How do you answer it?

[swerveman]

Out. Because you've decided to dispense with the bails, there is no need for the wicketkeeper to do any more than make a half-decent contact.

[missingleg]

Interesting. I ask because my tutor told me last night it is unfair to be allowed to perform a 'double-stumping' like this. The wicketkeeper would either have to throw it to a fielder first or the batsmen would have to attempt a run.

I'm told you can only make ONE attempt at a stumping; though I can't find anything in the Laws about it.

[lofters]

Has to be out stumped, imo. Tom Smith refers to this type of case in Law 28[4] plus notes...on pp202/3. Paragraph determines that as long as the stump/s are in their holes ..... not neccessary to be vertical..... a second 'putting down' can be effected.

The period of time between the stumping attempts would also be key, as it may be construed unfair for the keeper to retain the ball for a 'long' time, say several seconds.

Personally I can't agree with the tutor here.

[wisden17]

Your tutor is wrong. In this situation the batsman would be out.

I would show him what it says in the MCC Open Learning Manual www.lords.org/data/files/olm-2nd-edition-complete-10106.pdf
at p.89:


"He does not have to make any judgment about how hard the strike was, nor about the possible effect of previous strikes. Even if some or all of the remaining stumps are already askew, he will adjudge the wicket as having been put down, as long as there was contact between one of the agencies listed and one or more of the stumps."

[missingleg]

I see. I suppose playing with bails a wicketkeeper could rip out a stump if he'd previously been unsuccessful with a stumping attempt in removing the bails too.

I'm told that good old imposter Law 43 could be implemented here!

[wisden17]

Yes, as long as he did so with the ball in hand. That would be out.

Well in what sense is Law 43 relevant?

What you'll often find, with the removal of a stump, is a fielder will pull the stump out with one hand, and then touch the ball against it in mid-air, whilst shouting a frantic appeal; which of course is "Not Out".

I've never seen the stump removal method of the wicket being broken done correctly in a game.

[missingleg]

I suppose in the sense that it's unfair to have multiple attempts at a stumping. After 1 breaking of the wicket, the potential dismissal should then be run-out and therefore the ball should be thrown to a fielder by the wicketkeeper.

I can't find anything in Law to back this up though, so I'd give this out.

I've never seen a stump removed, legally or otherwise.

[johnfgolding]

As you described the second attempt by the keeper was less than a second then the batsman is clearly out.
You may have to consider whether he stumbled forward or was starting of on a run. The bowler would have an interest in the outcome of your deliberations.

After more than a second or so everyone would reasonably consider the ball to be dead.
I have seen the ball being taken by the keeper who held on to it and a few seconds maybe 10 the batsman walk for a conference and the keeper tok the bails off and appealed.

[jaybee]

Feb 25, 2009 12:06:26 GMT missingleg said:

I suppose in the sense that it's unfair to have multiple attempts at a stumping. After 1 breaking of the wicket, the potential dismissal should then be run-out and therefore the ball should be thrown to a fielder by the wicketkeeper.

Not true. Many years ago - at a very early ACUS - course we were told about a keeper in a County match who thought the batsman's foot was only on the line and not grounded behind. He removed one bail, then the other and proceeded to remove each stump in turn - all correctly and with an appeal after each such action.
Each time the umpire said not out. The keeper rebuilt the wicket and went through the whole charade again until he got fed up with it! I don't think it was an apochryphal tale though I remember the name of neither the keeper nor the batsman - my failing memory tells me I had heard of one of the participants.
In this series of events there was no question of an attempt at a run, the ball wasn't dead because the keeper regarded it as still in play (until he got tired of it) and presumably it wasn't the 6th ball so the umpire couldn't kill it off by calling 'over'.
On a more normal note, there have been many instances of one bail being removed when the batsman was in his ground then being dismissed when he lost his balance and the keeper removed the second bail.

[umpireindia]

There is nowhere in the law to give this "Not Out"! The law is very clear about when a wicket is down.

I would give this "Out", if this happens in my match, unless the ball is dead.