|
Wides
Nov 18, 2009 10:15:07 GMT
Post by colinball on Nov 18, 2009 10:15:07 GMT
Another question that caused some debate (We do have fun down here in Sussex) The batting side need 4 to win off the last ball of the match. The bowler bowls a ball a long way wide of the off stump. In exasperation, the striker throws his bat at the ball. The bat hits the ball which is diverted past the slips and runs towards the boundary. What would you do?
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 24, 2009 16:10:15 GMT
Post by jaybee on Nov 24, 2009 16:10:15 GMT
I'm surprised that nobody else has responded about this curious situation. I'm by no means sure about this and suggest that a good deal of Law 43 is needed. [1] Is it a wide? The umpire is required to retract the call of wide if the ball makes contact with the bat or the batsman's person but - at the time it makes contact with the bat - it isn't a bat within the letter of the Laws because it isn't in contact with the striker's hand. Equally it isn't part of his person; it's some sort of obstacle - the nearest things I can suggest to compare it with are a branch fallen from a tree or an animal which has got onto the field of play. Therefore I'd give a wide (assuming that the ball had got past the popping crease before the bat made contact). [2] How to deal with the ball running to the boundary? My analogy here - with a good dollop of Law 43 thrown in - is to the ball striking a keeper's helmet on the ground. In that case, in addition to the five-run penalty the umpire is required to call 'Dead Ball'. Here there is no penalty provision but calling dead ball would stop play and eliminate the unfair advantage the batting side might have gained through the striker's action while allowing both sides to have a replay of the last ball with the extra delivery accruibng from the wide.
I'd love to hear of a better solution.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 24, 2009 20:00:25 GMT
Post by missingleg on Nov 24, 2009 20:00:25 GMT
It's not unheard of for batsmen to lose their grip on a bat in the process of swinging hard at the ball and the bat to fly away (some have been out hit-wicket in this way). I suppose you'd have to be there in that situation to make the call.
Unless I've misunderstood the situation, I'd say he's hit the ball with the bat...so it's runs.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 24, 2009 21:35:07 GMT
Post by wisden17 on Nov 24, 2009 21:35:07 GMT
What an interesting question Colin.
Law 6.8(a) states that 'reference to the bat shall imply that the bat is held in the batsman’s hand or a glove worn on his hand, unless stated otherwise'. Law 25.2(b) relates to situations where a ball isn't a wide, and 'if the ball touches the striker's bat or person', it will not be a wide. So in this scenario I would deem the ball to be Wide.
I don't see on what basis you can treat the bat hitting the ball as analogous to the ball hitting a helmet on the ground. In fact I don't see there's anything, necessarily, unfair with the striker's action.
I'd award the boundary allowance in addition to the penalty for the wide ball (so 5 runs would be added to the extras under wides).
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 1:08:27 GMT
Post by missingleg on Nov 25, 2009 1:08:27 GMT
...But how can you give 5 wides if the ball has been deflected off the bat, thus preventing the wicketkeeper from stopping the ball going for additional extras?
This may boil down to umpires being 'the sole judges of fair and unfair play' as this isn't really covered in the laws. What if the delivery wasn't very wide of the stumps (wasn't going to be a wide) but the striker still - literally - threw his bat at it and they ran? Dot ball?
I'd still think that runs (and the possibility of being caught out) is fair to the original scenario, just as if the batsman completely loses his grip on the bat when swinging at the ball, but it is an excellent question.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 1:43:27 GMT
Post by wisden17 on Nov 25, 2009 1:43:27 GMT
You think it is fair to give a batsman out caught if the ball hits a bat he isn't holding?! Not only is that completely against the laws, it seems quite perverse.
The reason you can give 5 wides, is it hasn't been deflected off his bat. His bat, is per Law 6.8(a), not a bat when he lets go of it. You seem to be getting slightly confused by Law 28.1(a)(ii), which is relevant only for that law (and references to it, e.g. in Law 35) and it not making a distinction between whether the bat is being held or not.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 11:09:43 GMT
Post by missingleg on Nov 25, 2009 11:09:43 GMT
Understood. I still don't see the fairness of penalising the bowler with 5 wides for the bat hitting the ball to the boundary though. What if the batsman drops the bat a second before the ball then hits the bat infront of the stumps - does that then bring in the possibility of lbw? What if the batsman loses grip of the bat mid-swing? No runs? It just seems bizarre!
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 12:05:00 GMT
Post by wisden17 on Nov 25, 2009 12:05:00 GMT
I agree it does seem a little bizarre. If he loses grip of the bat mid-swing, then any runs should be given as byes. The question of LBW is an interesting one, but under the laws if the ball after hitting the 'bat' then goes onto to hit the striker and would have gone on to hit the stumps, then yes, I'd give him out LBW.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 12:59:51 GMT
Post by jaybee on Nov 25, 2009 12:59:51 GMT
One or two people have referred to a batsman losing his grip on the bat and it flying away out of his control. That was not the situation here - it was a deliberate act by the striker. Therefore, in my opinion, we are dealing with fair and unfair play (in which the umpire is sole arbiter and entitled to intervene). In such circumstances it would be a travesty for the batting side to get an extra 4 runs over and above the penalty for a wide. Perhaps the analogy with the ball striking a helmet on the ground isn't a good one but it does show that there is at least one circumstance in which play is to be brought to a halt when it strikes an 'obstruction' which might otherwise give an unfair advantage to one side or the other. Equally - although it isn't stated categorically - the ball is probably bowled wide deliberately, hence the striker's frustration (though he obviously wasn't thinking clearly if the ball was so wide). As well as being totally correct to give a wide, because the bat is no longer held and isn't part of the batsman's person, this applies an appropriate penalty for the bowler's sharp practice.
How about another variation - what do you do if the batsmen start to run with the ball heading towards the boundary (and possibly pulling up just short of it? If you call wide and then dead ball that eliminates other problems which might arise in that scenario.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 13:13:19 GMT
Post by R Hunter on Nov 25, 2009 13:13:19 GMT
It is indeed an interesting, if slightly bizarre, scenario that is being discussed. However, the possibility of an LBW decision going against the batsman in the proposed circumstances is surely a step too far into fanciful, if only because I defy even the most alert of us to be in a position to be able to make the necessary fine judgements regarding pitch, line, height, point-of-impact etc while a bat is flying through the air - such an event would be enough of a distraction that would inevitably draw one's attention away from the lbw decision.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 15:15:03 GMT
Post by jerryspaniel on Nov 25, 2009 15:15:03 GMT
For what its worth I will give my tuppence. It cant be runs as he wasnt holding the bat and deliberately releases the bat. It shouldnt be a boundary as his 'unfair' action may have prevented the fielding side from fielding the ball. It cant be a wide as the ball hasnt passed the strikers wicket. So by my process of elimination I would call dead ball and the ball not to count as one of the over. If I recall Dermot Reeve used to throw his bat away when padding up so that the ball couldnt accidentally hit his bat. If my memory serves me that action was banned and so maybe there is a sanction that can be directed to the batsman for this act though I still think its dead ball....
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 17:27:54 GMT
Post by missingleg on Nov 25, 2009 17:27:54 GMT
Seems fair...but then how can it be dead ball and the ball not to count if the striker has played at, and hit, the ball? In any other circumstance that ball would be one of the over. Couldn't it also be argued that, on appeal, he is out obstructed the field?
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 17:38:46 GMT
Post by lofters on Nov 25, 2009 17:38:46 GMT
Very bizarre scenario..... I reckon there's no way either bowler or batsman should profit from their actions in this delivery. We dont know where the thrown bat made contact with the ball.... so it may be that after the players actions are at an end, one would need to consult with squareleg colleague as to whether or not contact was made behind the bowling crease. If contact was made behind the bowling crease, then a wide has occurred and should be awarded..... then dead ball called/signalled....... one to come and 3 runs to win. If contact made in front of bowling crease, then cannot be a wide...... so signal/call dead ball, not to count in the over.... still one to come and 4 runs to win. The early call of dead ball would negate any claim..... by the batting side for a boundary score or any completed runs, and by the bowling side for a runout. To conclude,dead ball, then consult to scratch heads and deliberate over whether a wide has occurred. There's going to be another delivery in the game anyhow.
Very likely that your Captains Assessment marks would be interesting to see!
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 17:41:38 GMT
Post by Hoshang Kharadi on Nov 25, 2009 17:41:38 GMT
In order to come to a correct decision we have to analyse the situation what happened during that delivery.
The facts: 1. The bowler bowls a ball a long way wide of the off stump. 2. The striker (in exasperation??) throws his bat at the ball and deflects it to the boundary. In order to give a correct decision we must ask a question.
1. Has the striker`s action, by throwing his bat and deflecting the ball to the boundary, happened before the call of a "WIDE BALL" by the striker`s end umpire or after that? In the first case the striker was entitled to do that and score a boundary. But, after the call of a WIDE BALL by the umpire, the striker`s action should be called and assesed as "obstruction of the fielding side", and the striker should be given out.
|
|
|
Wides
Nov 25, 2009 17:49:54 GMT
Post by missingleg on Nov 25, 2009 17:49:54 GMT
Is the timing of the call of wide ball significant though? I usually call wide ball a second or two after the ball has passed the striker, even though technically it's wide from the moment of delivery.
|
|