|
|
Post by colinball on Nov 18, 2009 10:11:58 GMT
This question caused much discussion among a group of Sussex umpires:
The striker shoulders arms, lifting his bat above his head. The ball strikes his pad and bounces up, hitting his bat. The ball is diverted over the keeper's head, and runs down towards the boundary. What would you do?
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Nov 18, 2009 18:19:16 GMT
If the ball crossed the boundary, I would turn towards the scorers and signal boundary four.
The situation I have seen happen on T.V. was when a batsman shouldered arms, the ball then bounced up, hit the bat, and went on to the wickets, breaking it. He was out bowled.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Nov 19, 2009 8:53:35 GMT
If the ball crossed the boundary, I would turn towards the scorers and signal boundary four. The situation I have seen happen on T.V. was when a batsman shouldered arms, the ball then bounced up, hit the bat, and went on to the wickets, breaking it. He was out bowled. I would agree with this. It seems no more than a pad / bat situation. I saw the ball hit a batsmans pad (high up) then went on to hit his glove then caught by the keeper. As both hands were still holding the bat to me it was obvious the batsman was out caught. For a while he thought it was the worse lbw ever. |
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Nov 19, 2009 14:10:36 GMT
This situation was clarified in the 2003 amendments.
It should be called and signalled as a dead ball when the ball reached the boundary and no runs (bar penalty for no-ball) should be allowed. The key point is that the determination of runs scored is based on the initial impact of the ball hitting the pad, when he wasn't playing a shot, and so no runs are scored from the delivery.
Law 26.2 is quite clear in its meaning 'If a ball delivered by the bowler first strikes the person of the striker, runs shall be scored only if the umpire is satisfied that the striker has
either (i) attempted to play the ball with his bat,
or (ii) tried to avoid being hit by the ball . . .'
In any situation (i.e. even if it then does subsequently strike the bat) where the ball first hits the batsman on his person, either of those two conditions have to be met.
There's an interesting point related to a catch, which some of you might not know. If the sequence of events had gone, pad, ground, bat (so it bounced after hitting pad before hitting the bat) then the batsman can't be out caught (see Law 32.3(d)). Never seen it happen in a game, but I imagine it might provoke a few 'polite enquiries' as to what you were thinking as you gave it 'Not Out'!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoshang Kharadi on Nov 19, 2009 17:14:31 GMT
If the ball hits the batsman`s pad in the described manner,
-batsman not trying to make a genuine attempt to hit the ball with the bat, the Leg Bye should be disallowed, and neither a
boudary nor a Run can be scored from that delivery (Law 26.3).
H.K.
|
|
|
|
Post by colinball on Nov 19, 2009 19:21:37 GMT
Thank you for your replies - glad we're all in agreement. Nice point about pad-ground-bat. It's one of those things that happens so rarely one could be caught unawares (pardon the pun)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Jun 15, 2010 23:30:31 GMT
I don't think calling it dead ball is the correct call - also the opinion of National Panel umpires in my state. Law 26.2 clearly also states " ...... and the ball makes no subsequent contact with the bat"
The common sense rule has to apply here. If the batsman can be out caught from it then its reasonable to expect he should also be awarded any runs from the bat. IMHO
|
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Jun 16, 2010 13:58:05 GMT
Hi Reggie, Subsequent to my original answer on this, the MCC have published some Questions & Answers on Law 26 (which are questions received by the MCC Laws Sub-Committee, and answered by them). www.lords.org/data/files/law_26_qanda-9677.pdfAs you will see the last question, 26-C, deals specifically with the situation described in the original posting on this thread. I hope that helps clarify the point, and you should direct your National Panel umpires to look at this. |
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Jun 18, 2010 2:06:04 GMT
Thanks for that Wisden,
I hadn't seen that. I will pass it on.
I have just received my new shiny 2010 laws which has a rewrite of 26.2 making it a lot easier to understand, and moving the reference to the ball hitting the bat so that in the above example it is now very clear in the laws that no runs will be awarded apart from the no ball penalty if called.
|
|
