Is it out?

[srinivasan]

Here is a scenario that took place recently in one of our domestic matches.....

The striker plays a ball delivered legally and it loops high up in the air above the wickets. The batsman take a quick single and as the non-striker is approaching the striker's end, he notices that the ball would land on the stumps and he dives to deliberately knock all three stumps out of the ground. The ball finally falls on the wickets and the fielders appeal (later they said they appealed for Obstruction). The Umpire at the bowler's end, gave the striker out "Bowled" and of course advised the incoming batsman to face the next delivery in the over. I agree with his decision. Are we right?

[gooders]

The thought occurs to methat, if the ball went high enough in the air for the non-striker to make good his ground, what was the wicket keeper doing during the time the ball was in the air? Did he make any attempt to get into position to take what appears to be an obvious chance for a catch?
Since the ball did not put down the wicket, the the striker cannot be out bowled, so he was wrong in giving the batsman out bowled.

[missingleg]

Certainly not out bowled from my reading of the laws for gooders' reason above. Perhaps the non-striker could be out obstructed-the-field but only if, in the umpire's opinion, it was a deliberate act.

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

agree with gooders and missingleg, unless there was an attempt to take the catch by fielding side it was only the non-striker who could be out Obstructing the field.

Again there was no question of striker being out bowled as all the three stumps were already struck out of the ground.

If bowlers end umpire would think that was a deliberate attempt by non-striker as you mentioned then in such case non-striker could be out "Obstructing the field" as per law 37.1 and 37.2 and dismissed on appeal.

[sillypoint]

Utterly fanciful stuff to even consider giving the striker out bowled—all he has done is hit the ball and run! As to whether you would consider the non striker guilty of anything other than clumsiness, I guess you would have to be there, but you would have to be sure his action was a WILFUL attempt to distract or obstruct before considering a dismissal.

[whakidywhak]

Surely this cannot be out Obstructing the Field as the fielding side were not obstructed (provided there was no attempt at a catch). Also nobody can be sure that the ball would have broken the wicket if the stumps had not been put down by the batsman. Therefore, I suggest this may be a case of Unfair Play (42.2) and subject to report, etc. That is unless the batsman had reason to divert his run onto the stumps, e.g. to avoid the bowler/another fielder, etc.

[jaybee]

Apr 18, 2014 5:33:58 GMT whakidywhak said:

Surely this cannot be out Obstructing the Field as the fielding side were not obstructed (provided there was no attempt at a catch). Also nobody can be sure that the ball would have broken the wicket if the stumps had not been put down by the batsman....

Clearly this is a case where Law 43 and common sense come into play. If deliberate action by a batsman potentially thwarts a dismissal then Obstructing the Field is an option the umpire needs to consider, particularly when sharp practice is involved.
After all a batsman picking up the ball or tapping it with his bat to return it to a fielder is equally liable to dismissal if there's an appeal regardless of the likelihood of a dismissal in any other way.