Is it a short run?

[nazmulahsan]

Will it consider as a short run if the batsman grounded the bat on a fielder's shoe (fielder was inside the popping crease to receive the throw) when turning for the next run?

[Acumen]

Strictly speaking, the batsman must touch the ground.

However I think you should use common sense in applying the Law in this situation and NOT call Short Run.

[sillypoint]

I would go further than just common sense, and extrapolate from elsewhere in the Laws also. Law 18 only refers to "(making) good his ground" in defining a run. Then in Law 19 we find that "The phrase ‘grounded beyond the boundary’ shall mean contact with …" among other things "… any object in contact with the ground beyond the boundary edge." Applying this to the situation raised it is perfectly legitimate to regard the batsman as having "made good his ground" if he touches a fielder's shoe instead of the ground itself—provided, of course, that the shoe is itself in contact with the ground beyond the popping crease!

[nazmulahsan]

Thanks sillypoint

[zaump]

Jun 8, 2016 1:40:40 GMT sillypoint said:

I would go further than just common sense, and extrapolate from elsewhere in the Laws also. Law 18 only refers to "(making) good his ground" in defining a run. Then in Law 19 we find that "The phrase ‘grounded beyond the boundary’ shall mean contact with …" among other things "… any object in contact with the ground beyond the boundary edge." Applying this to the situation raised it is perfectly legitimate to regard the batsman as having "made good his ground" if he touches a fielder's shoe instead of the ground itself—provided, of course, that the shoe is itself in contact with the ground beyond the popping crease!

Resurrecting this to raise something. If the shoe _wasn't_ in contact with the ground beyond the crease, I think that should be called a short run, common sense notwithstanding. My logic would go like this: if the fielder deliberately steps in the way to prevent a sliding bat from making its ground, that'd be obstruction (41.5) and penalties would apply. But if it's not deliberate, then it's the batter's fault, and any consequences are his responsibility - if the stumps were broken, he'd be run out, for eg - and so if he's short of his ground, the run should be called short.

Yes?

Unlikely sort of incident, obviously, but it's the sort of thing our administrators like to put in exams

[Rob]

Zaump - in your last post you are correct.

However, I disagree with Sillypoint on the original post. If the bat/ person of the batsman is not grounded over the popping crease in turning for another run then it is a short run in opinion - that's what the Laws say. The analogy to something being beyond the boundary has nothing to do with the popping crease and running.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - don't over-complicate your thinking. It's unfortunate for the batsman, but those are the Laws of the game!

[Ian]

Technically its a short run but common sense says you (or I anyway) wouldn't call it.
The boundary analogy is a red herring but consider if a batsman hits the ball into his own or the wicket keeper's foot and the ball bounces up and it then caught - the batsman is our caught because the ball was never grounded - hence it must follow the bat was never grounded so the batsman did not make his ground therefore short run.
There was a question in the ECBACO Level 1 exam on just such an occurrence for batsman in his ground or not - what a complete waste of a question - how on earth are you going to see that in the split second you have on field?

[tippex2]

In my experience, exams (esp at Level 1) are more about knowing the Laws, rather than training you to spot things on the field. It's not helpful for real-life observation to have, as the last sentence of an LBW Law question "In your opinion, the ball would have hit the wicket"; but it's the only way you can ask sensible, classroom-based questions.