|
Post by gooders on Jul 29, 2015 15:51:10 GMT
So, the call of 'Over' doesn't make the ball dead. At the call of over, I used to be thinking about the details I was recording on my card. When does the ball become dead at the end of the over then? Surely, when over is called, the batsmen usually start their gardening, but if the fielding side consider the ball is still live, they can now effect a dismissal with the batsman out of his ground, even though he thinks he is safe. Surely the law was better when the call of over made the ball automatically dead. Is it going to have to be "Dead Ball, Over" in future, just to make sure?
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Oct 25, 2015 18:57:42 GMT
Sorry, rather late in spotting this thread.
2 points:
1) The call of over doesn't make the ball dead, no, but by definition the call will not be made until the bowler's end umpire considers the ball to be dead (as Law 23.3 makes clear). So the question is approaching the issue from the wrong point of view. The call of over is the indication to all that the umpire considers the ball to be dead (and six legal deliveries have been delivered).
2) The ball going from the keeper to the slip and then a run out being effected is an interesting situation. The key is the umpire's interpretation of whether the ball was finally settled in the hands of the keeper (per Law 23.1(a)(i)). The MCC Open Learning Manual has this to say on the matter "In Law 23.1(a)(i), the ball being finally settled is, as stated in Law 23.2, a matter of the umpire’s judgment. It must be clear to him that neither the wicket-keeper nor the bowler is intending further action. Obvious indicators, not to be regarded as the only possibilities, are the wicketkeeper passing the ball on without urgency to another fielder, or the bowler with the ball in his hand beginning to walk back to his starting point for the next delivery". The issue is whether the wicketkeeper is intending further action, and by passing it deliberately to the fielder in order than a run out can be effected (as opposed to just throwing it to the fielder so it can be returned to the bowler). Hard to judge on information supplied.
|
|
|
Post by easy11 on Jun 18, 2023 10:11:32 GMT
I wouldn't have a (notional) clock running beyond which I would consider the ball to be dead. If a batsman is teetering on the edge of losing his balance, then I think the keeper's entitled to wait until the batsman regains his footing, whether this take 5 seconds or longer. If the keeper's still got the ball, and the batsman wants to go for a stroll, there doesn't need to be a formal call of dead ball - if the batsman asks the umpire non-verbally and receives a nod, that should be plenty. One thing i wouldn't allow is for the 'keeper to mime throwing the ball to another fielder - that would confirm that the ball was dead as far as I was concerned. With regard to the original post (and obviously without commenting on the incident in question specifically) it's worth remembering that, even if an action were against the spirit of the game, that doesn't mean that a dismissal based on that actino is invalid. The umpires can report breaches of the Spirit to higher authority but, on the field, they have to give decisions in accordance with the Laws. I appreciate this thread is a tad old but after an incident yesterday for my team, I had to look things up. I was batting, I'd lost my balance but my back foot was in as the keeper received the delivery. After miming (unseen by me) throwing to gully, he then whipped the bails off as I shuffled an inch or 2 out of crease. Why would the 'miming' of throwing to his fielder be a confirmation of a Dead Ball I your view ?
|
|
|
Post by easy11 on Jun 18, 2023 10:13:35 GMT
Also, the whole scenario was a good 20-30 seconds after ball had been received by the keeper. Our umpires called the ball dead but the fielding team regarded it as live. The miming was a cheap shot as we were coasting to the W
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jul 13, 2023 16:36:38 GMT
|
|
gilo
Junior Contributor
Posts: 9
|
Post by gilo on Jul 14, 2023 6:48:52 GMT
As Carey threw the ball at the stumps immediately upon receiving it, it was clearly still considered live by him (and the fielding side). Whether Bairstow 'went gardening' or simply stood outside his ground is irrelevant. He was legitimately stumped.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jul 14, 2023 7:02:56 GMT
Douglas commented:
My own view on this incident is that what happened was underhand. My sympathy for Bairstow is increased by his tiny gesture of regaining the crease before moving off up the pitch. Had he been out of the crease the entire time it might have been different. The law, of course, is not ideally worded, but it is better than the Mankad law, which I call a conman's charter and which should have had Fraser Stewart seeing the error of his ways in the Charlie Dean incident instead of crowing away about the batsman waiting until the ball is delivered.
I was taught (in law not in cricket) that equity prevails over the law. I would seek to apply that principle now. It is very hard to disagree with the umpire's application of the law – but I prefer to think I would have said, especially in junior cricket, 'Not out but watch out what you are doing. Some umpires might have given you out.' Probably harder to do that in a Test match; still desirable to do it in a league match and face the consequences! Involving the captain is chickening out. In the Bairstow incident why was the third umpire involved – that was chickening out.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jul 14, 2023 7:13:36 GMT
Willie commented
I think the players are all professional and they should know the laws of the game in my opinion Bairstow was out but common sense should prevail.
|
|
|
Post by stevepitts on Jul 14, 2023 12:10:57 GMT
Based on the Sky/BBC coverage I was of the opinion that this was simply Bairstow being dozy and not alert to a trick that he himself has tried - the Aussies (in the shape of wicket keeper Carey) clearly did not consider the ball dead and it was thrown immediately. However, the Channel 9 coverage makes it apparent that _neither_ umpire was even looking at the game when the ball struck the stumps - Raza at the bowler's end was looking down at the cap attached to his coat as he went to unclip it whilst Gaffaney at the striker's end was looking down at the ground in front of his feet and therefore both clearly considered the action to be complete. This makes referring to the third umpire more understandable but also makes it apparent that this was not considered by them to be in the normal flow of the game.
As to how to handle it in a league match, difficult to say until put in that position but if neither umpire had been watching the action at the time the wickets were broken I would certainly be unable to give the batsman out and, as you say, would simply have to face the consequences of that.
|
|
gilo
Junior Contributor
Posts: 9
|
Post by gilo on Jul 15, 2023 7:34:11 GMT
There is clearly an anomaly in the laws here. If the umpire is only expected to call over when he considers the ball to be dead - then a batsman should also be permitted to assume the same. Although Tom Smiths clearly states that the call of over does not make the ball dead - perhaps, with common sense, it is time to change that.
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Jul 17, 2023 12:32:16 GMT
There is no anomaly; the Law is quite specific: "The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play." (Law 20.1.2) It also says: "Neither the call of Over … nor the call of Time … is to be made until the ball is dead" The batters shouldn't assume the ball is dead without getting some sort of confirmation from nearby fielders—it can be as simple as eye contact, a nod, just clearly moving on to the next thing—but it could also be spoken. Umpires must watch the behaviour of the players for the same kinds of signals that indicate that hey consider the ball to be dead. This applies after every ball, but especially on the last ball of an over they should remain alert and watchful. To call Over prematurely is poor umpiring.
|
|