|
|
Post by Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh on Jan 16, 2014 7:34:43 GMT
Its a NO Ball. Striker strikes it with bat and wicket keeper is about to catch it but striker deflects it. And in the opinion of umpire he does so legitimately for "the sole purpose of" guarding his wicket.
Appeal has been made by the wicket keeper, what will be the decision ?
|
|
chiggers
Regular Contributor
DCCL
Posts: 16
|
Post by chiggers on Jan 16, 2014 8:02:56 GMT
Its a NO Ball. Striker strikes it with bat and wicket keeper is about to catch it but striker deflects it. And in the opinion of umpire he does so legitimately for "the sole purpose of" guarding his wicket. Appeal has been made by the wicket keeper, what will be the decision ? Can't be caught off a no-ball therefore he didn't prevent a catch being taken; umpire thinks he was guarding his wicket but he couldn't be bowled anyway. Pure common sense says not out |
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jan 16, 2014 15:15:27 GMT
He could still be out obstructing the field off a no-ball...but not in this instance as the umpire has decided there was no deliberate act to prevent the wk from fielding the ball. He's allowed to guard his wicket even if he couldn't be out anyway (besides, the batsman could always claim he didn't hear the call!)
That's my reading of the laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh on Jan 17, 2014 5:49:20 GMT
@ chiggers and missingleg : thanks for your reply and i am agreed with you.
So in the following law 37.3
"The striker is out should wilful obstruction or distraction by either batsman prevent a catch being made"
does the interpretation of "catch" mean a valid catch ? which can be made only on the fair delivery ?
my personal opinion is, its a valid catch.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Jan 23, 2014 8:28:59 GMT
"… does the interpretation of "catch" mean a valid catch …"
Of course. A catch is a catch is a catch. There can be no catch from a No Ball (see Law 32.1), therefore 37.3 does not apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by nazmulahsan on Feb 14, 2014 16:02:14 GMT
But from a no ball if the non striker prevent a catch (if non striker claims he did not hear the call ) then non striker is out Obstructing the Field and any completed run shall be counted. Am I correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Feb 27, 2014 22:21:20 GMT
But from a no ball if the non striker prevent a catch (if non striker claims he did not hear the call ) then non striker is out Obstructing the Field and any completed run shall be counted. Am I correct?
Yes. If the delivery is a No Ball the question of preventing a catch does not arise, so if you ruled Obstructing the Field against the non-striker, then the non-striker would him/herself be out OF.
|
|
|
|
Post by nazmulahsan on Mar 13, 2014 10:20:57 GMT
Few days ago I was officiating a match as umpire. A ball first hit batman's pad, then ground, then his bat and then the fairly caught by a fielder. There was an appeal. I declared the batsman out. Was it a correct decission? I'm still confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Mar 13, 2014 10:57:03 GMT
I assume from your description that the ball's contact with the bat was more or less incidental as part of the path of the ball for that delivery, in which case the catch is fair. If on the other hand you considered it to be a lawful second strike for the purpose of guarding his wicket, then you were incorrect, as the ball had touched the ground between the first and second strike (ref Law 32.3.c).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Royle on Mar 26, 2014 13:17:59 GMT
Sorry but must disagree with the last post - Pad/ground/bat is not out caught whether the second "strike" is wilful or not (Law 32.3C)
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Mar 27, 2014 19:53:17 GMT
Law 32.3.c applies specifically and only to the situation "after it has been lawfully struck more than once". In other words, as per 34.1.3. If the ball makes more than one contact with the striker's bat or person all as part of the act of play the ball in the first place, then its final point of departure before being caught is what counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Mar 30, 2014 17:24:15 GMT
www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws-in-action/law-32-in-action/Catch from pad-ground-bat strike Question: If the ball first hits the pad, then the ground and then the bat, can the striker be out Caught? Answer: Law 32.3(d) states that it is a fair catch “if a fielder catches the ball after it has been lawfully struck more than once, but only if the ball has not touched the ground since being first struck”. An inadvertent second stroke is to be considered lawful. Because of the grounding, a catch is not possible even if the second strike is wilful. If it was wilful then, unless it was in defence of his wicket, the striker would be out Hit the ball twice. The question of preventing a catch by a wilful second strike cannot arise because the ground contact means no catch is possible. [Law reference: 32.3]
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Mar 30, 2014 21:34:04 GMT
OK. I stand corrected, and note the difference between "lawful" and "wilful".
|
|
