no ball and dead ball simultaneously

[shubham sharma]

If a bowler over steps and the umpire calls no-ball but at the same time bails from the strikers wicket fall down then will the ball be considered dead and if the opponent team requires 1 run to win then what will be the decision?

[Reggie Duff]

If the bails fall off before the striker has had an opportunity to play the ball it is a dead ball. The delivery doesn't count as one of the over and no run should be awarded for the no-ball. That's my take on the situation - stand to be corrected though.

[abhi]

In this situation,the game is over at the call of NO BALL.

[abhi]

Sorry,i didnt mention the law reference,it is Law 21.6.
Tom Smith explained it very clearly.

[wisden17]

Well whilst a no-ball is considered to be a no-ball from the instant of the call (Law 24.12), the fact is that for a no-ball to be scored the ball has to be delivered (Law 24.9). As the bails have fallen from the striker's end prior to the delivery of the ball, the call of dead ball will be made and so the ball can't be delivered.

[abhi]

Yes.Thats it.If the ball delivered before the call of DEAD BALL,the game is over.

[chartman]

Aug 23, 2010 17:07:47 GMT abhi said:

Yes.Thats it.If the ball delivered before the call of DEAD BALL,the game is over.

I believe Wisden is stating that no run will be scored as the ball became dead before the striker had an opportunity to hit the ball, therefore the ball was not delivered and the game is not over. (If I've misunderstood you Wisden I apologise).
I don't have Tom Smith's with me but my interpretation is the same as Reggie Duff's. Following on from the sequence described I would turn to the scorers and signal that the call of no-ball is revoked and then re-signal dead ball. The score would therefore be the same and the ball replayed.

[wisden17]

I was saying that chartman, yes.

Although I must admit I'm not sure now on this one, after having thought about it a bit more.

If you forget about it being one run to win, and just say this happens at a normal stage in the match, if the bowler bowls a no-ball, ball leaves his hand, before ball pitches bails fall off, as ball pitches umpires calls and signals dead ball.

I mean from the laws it would seem the one run penalty would be scored. I must admit it would feel a bit odd repeating the no ball signal in those circumstances, but it seems to be correct. So the scorers would have to record a no-ball off a ball that never really happened (so to speak).

Following the same logic, I think if the bails fall off after the ball has left the bowler's hand, then the laws seem to suggest the game would be over as the one run penalty for the no-ball will stand.

[jaybee]

I tend to agree with wisden17's latest comments though coming at it from a slightly different angle.

This all hinges on whether (or when) the ball is 'delivered'.

• there are two types of delivery - fair and unfair, the no-ball being in the latter category; and:
• there is another type of delivery where the batsman doesn't get a chance to play it - the ball coming to rest before it reaches him (after which no-ball is called).

Given that this is the case the question then becomes one of whether the ball left the bowler's hand before or after the bail fell off.

• If the bail is off when he looks up it's likely that this happened before the ball was released and so it would be right to retract the no-ball call.
• If he sees the bail fall then the odds are that this happened after the ball was released, it's a no-ball and the game finishes. It's not necessary to call dead ball in these circumstances.

I just hope this doesn't happen to me on the field!

[wisden17]

Haha, quite John. It would be a good one to explain in the bar afterwards!

One thing just looking at the laws, which now has puzzled me a bit. If we have a situation where the bowler runs in, you call no-ball for overstepping, and bowler then simply drops the ball. It would seem under the laws the no-ball would still stand, although I must admit that doesn't seem entirely 'right' to me??

[nedwilsher]

Almost by definition, the ball leaving the hand after the bowler has commenced his delivery stride must be a 'delivery' even if it is bowled backwards (which I am sure we have all seen). Is it for the umpire to intervene with a call of 'dead ball' simply because the bowler got it all muddled? Law 23.3(b)(vii) covers an accidental dropping of the ball before the 'delivery' so the inference (and common sense view) is that the ball remains live in other circumstances, though I have seen umpires freely call 'dead ball' rather than 'no ball' for a bouncing/rolling ball or a wide in these circumstances. So if the bowler bounds, swings his arm over and fails to bowl the ball fairly by dropping it on the ground, or over stepping, - that is, in my book, a no ball.

[abhi]

The bowler 'Delivered' the ball fairly,but VERY wide of the wicket.Before reaching the line of the striker's wicket,a fielder caught the ball.He threw the ball to put down striker's wicket,with him(the striker),out of his ground!..Was it VALID???

[tippexii]

Short answer, no. I think the MCC Laws committee issued a ruling about this situation (don't have reference to hand) that this should be treated as the ball coming to rest at the moment it touches a fielder in front of the wicket.

Therefore, no ball and immediate dead ball, no runs apart from 1-run penalty, and certainly no chance of a run out.

[jaybee]

I'm sorry to come back to this such a long time after it was posted. I must have seen this earlier but clearly didn't read it closely enough.

Aug 30, 2010 14:52:18 GMT nedwilsher said:

Almost by definition, the ball leaving the hand after the bowler has commenced his delivery stride must be a 'delivery' even if it is bowled backwards ... So if the bowler bounds, swings his arm over and fails to bowl the ball fairly by dropping it on the ground, or over stepping, - that is, in my book, a no ball.

As I said earlier I don't think a delivery is made until the ball leaves the bowler's hand.
Moreover, if the ball leaves the bowler's hand involuntarily, rather than by an intentional release, surely the delivery hasn't happened. This is particularly the case when the ball squirts out backwards or sideways because of the way it's been gripped or because the ball hasn't been dried properly and is slippery.
If the bowler completes his swing but drops the ball without it going forward that implies that he had decided not to complete the delivery and - no matter where his feet landed - it can't be a no ball.
If it heads forward and in the general direction of the batsman and the stumps then that's much more likely to be a delivery.
Doesn't it all come down to the facts at the time and ultimately isn't it for the umpire on the spot to take those into account using a healthy dollop of Law 43?

[slsapre]

Sir,
If the bail falls from the stumps before the bowler enters into his delivery stride, either umpire can call and signal Dead Ball. Here when the bowler has actually delivered the ball which umpire calls and signals 'No ball', where is the question of calling and signalling 'dead ball'. Had it not been no ball the batsman would have been declared out 'hit wicket' by the striker's end umpire. So here the batting side wins the match as a result of that No ball. The batting side wins the match as soon as Umpire calls no ball. For a batsman to be out hit wicket the ball must be bowled, here the ball was bowled but was a no ball. So no question of hit wicket.

SLSAPRE (BARODA-08/08/2011)