|
|
Post by Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh on Jan 17, 2014 8:51:16 GMT
In one of the match i have officiated , the overthrow by a fielder gets accidentally deflected of batsman's person. The covering fielder was ready to take this overthrow and previously was in line of throw. But as its get deflected he could not able to stop the ball and it ran over boundary line.
The batsman was not interested in boundary allowance and dint claim it.
As a result i have not signaled boundary 4. Did i make a right call ?
|
|
|
|
Post by viswajith on Jan 17, 2014 10:09:44 GMT
i dont think you were right here....even though the deflection from the bat was accidental and the batsmen didnt claim,it is a boundary overthrow...some batsmen may not run in such circumstances in the name of gentlemanship..but it is to be given boundary if the ball went past boundary in such cases
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh on Jan 17, 2014 10:21:16 GMT
viswajith : thanks for reply, i agree with you . But keeping in mind the situation the game was and disappointment by fielding side i had a gentle look towards both the batsmen , they felt sorry for it. The match have to be finished fairly and smoothly as it was about the end with a nail biter ... keeping in consideration all the above facts , i have not signaled it . But i think i could have signaled it as boundary 4... because what if that deflection could be a deliberate one... in that case fielding side could have claimed the batsman's wicket... Many things to learn .... not an easy job  more field experience only the way 
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Jan 23, 2014 8:21:14 GMT
I always believe that as an umpire you must have some part of the Laws on which to hang your hat. It is certainly not sufficient to simply not signal the boundary because of the fielding side's disappointment and/or the looks on the batsmen's faces; you must have some basis in the Laws.
It is a potential slippery slope, but I think in this case you could possibly argue that the ball was dead before it crossed the boundary on the basis of Law 23.1(b)—if you believe the conditions of that Law (ie. ALL the players "ceased to regard it as in play") were "clear to the bowler's end umpire".
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh on Jan 27, 2014 6:42:20 GMT
sillypoint : sounds good actually. I sensed the same on field that both the sides "ceased to regard ball is in play" before the ball reaches to the boundary. And I was more on the side of this fact and then may be my brain suggested not to signal as boundary. Anyways thanks a lot for reminding me law 23.1(b)
|
|
more field experience only the way 
