New Cricket Trivia - 'SJS format'

[fredfertang]

Dear oh dear, it isn't as simple as that Fred!

No but I am simple Ollie - best leave this one to Mr Zaremba - it clearly needs counsel's opinion

 

[BoyBrumby]

I would say one run for the no-ball & that the striker is out for hitting the ball twice. He's allowed to use his bat to defend his stumps, but as he's run on the second hit he should be out on appeal.

I think.

EDIT: Nah, it's a no-ball, isn't it? Pretty sure batsmen can only be run out off no-balls. Bugger.

 

[wisden18]

I would say one run for the no-ball & that the striker is out for hitting the ball twice. He's allowed to use his bat to defend his stumps, but as he's run on the second hit he should be out on appeal.

I think.

EDIT: Nah, it's a no-ball, isn't it? Pretty sure batsmen can only be run out off no-balls. Bugger.

Your answer is wrong, and just to add a batsman can be out in more than one way off a no ball. He cannot be out in any method for which a bowler gets credit; meaning he can still be out: run out, handling the ball, hitting the ball twice, or obstructing the field.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Your answer is wrong, and just to add a batsman can be out in more than one way off a no ball. He cannot be out in any method for which a bowler gets credit; meaning he can still be out: run out, handling the ball, hitting the ball twice, or obstructing the field.

Interesting.

My reading of Law 34 is that he should be out then:

1. Out Hit the ball twice
(a) The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any part of his person or is struck by his bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, he wilfully strikes it again with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket. See 3 below and Laws 33 (Handled the ball) and 37 (Obstructing the field).

Surely if he's then run on the second hit it's not solely to defend his wicket?

 

[wisden18]

Interesting.

My reading of Law 34 is that he should be out then:

1. Out Hit the ball twice
(a) The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any part of his person or is struck by his bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, he wilfully strikes it again with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket. See 3 below and Laws 33 (Handled the ball) and 37 (Obstructing the field).

Surely if he's then run on the second hit it's not solely to defend his wicket?

The fact that a batsman runs after hitting the ball a second (or third etc.) time does not necessarily mean that the second (or third!) shot was not for the "sole purpose of guarding his wicket". At the time of the shot the "sole purpose" was to stop the ball hitting the wicket, subsequent to that the batsmen have decided to run.

On your reading of the law how could any runs be scored from a ball hit more than once, as you seem to be suggesting if the batsmen run after the second shot it shows that the second shot had more than one purpose (i.e. the batsman was both trying to guard his wicket and look to score runs)? This is clearly not the way the law is framed.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The fact that a batsman runs after hitting the ball a second (or third etc.) time does not necessarily mean that the second (or third!) shot was not for the "sole purpose of guarding his wicket". At the time of the shot the "sole purpose" was to stop the ball hitting the wicket, subsequent to that the batsmen have decided to run.

On your reading of the law how could any runs be scored from a ball hit more than once, as you seem to be suggesting if the batsmen run after the second shot it shows that the second shot had more than one purpose (i.e. the batsman was both trying to guard his wicket and look to score runs)? This is clearly not the way the law is framed.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge, but "clearly" isn't the adjective I'd use for the framing of it. Decidedly ambiguous for mine.

 

[wisden18]

What I meant by clearly was the fact that there is a clause specifically dealing with runs allowed from a ball hit more than once. I'm puzzled as to how you could have any runs (beyond penalties) in any situation from your reading of the law?

 

[zaremba]

wisden 18 I've sent you an email

 

[BoyBrumby]

What I meant by clearly was the fact that there is a clause specifically dealing with runs allowed from a ball hit more than once. I'm puzzled as to how you could have any runs (beyond penalties) in any situation from your reading of the law?

I was under the impression runs couldn't be scored off a second hit of the ball, excepting overthrows?

I don't see how that reading affects other run-scoring (off first hits, leg byes, etc)?

 

[fredfertang]

Private consultations with the question setter - sounds a bit iffy Mr Z!!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Define "straight up in the air". He could be out obstructing the field if it's gone high enough for a fielder to get under it.

 

[wisden18]

I was under the impression runs couldn't be scored off a second hit of the ball, excepting overthrows?

I don't see how that reading affects other run-scoring (off first hits, leg byes, etc)?

I'm a bit lost now as to what your point is. Are you suggesting that if batsmen run following a second hit, and do so before an overthrow has occurred, that it shows that the intention of the second shot was not solely to defend the wicket?

 

[wisden18]

Define "straight up in the air". He could be out obstructing the field if it's gone high enough for a fielder to get under it.

Haha, good question! You can take it that the wicket keeper is standing well back, and is quite portly, so the batsman's second shot does not interfere with any catching chance for the wicketkeeper, as he's still waddling towards the wickets well out of range of the ball. Additionally there are no close fielders who are effected by the second shot.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm a bit lost now as to what your point is. Are you suggesting that if batsmen run following a second hit, and do so before an overthrow has occurred, that it shows that the intention of the second shot was not solely to defend the wicket?

Hope your on-field explanations are clearer than this.

All I was saying is that I was under the impression (mistaken it seems) that players can't take runs off a second hit of the ball with the bat. I can't state it any more baldly than that.

 

[wisden18]

Hope your on-field explanations are clearer than this.

All I was saying is that I was under the impression (mistaken it seems) that players can't take runs off a second hit of the ball with the bat. I can't state it any more baldly than that.

First off, this particular piece of law I wouldn't try to explain on the field (!), it is the most complex part, in my opinion.

You're not entirely wrong with what you are saying, in that a second shot in itself doesn't allow batsmen to score runs (they can of course attempt them, and the umpires will then disallow them after the first run has been completed, or the ball reaches the boundary (think of how it works when leg byes are disallowed)).

What you've lost me on is how the batsmen running relates to the intention of that second shot, and you seemed to suggest that if a batsman started to run it would then mean he was out, as it showed that he wasn't solely guarding his wicket? It's an interesting reading of the laws, and one I've not heard before. Generally though it is the position of the ball in relation to the wicket (in this case about to fall on top of them!) that is used as an indicator as to what the intention of the second shot was.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've read the law and at 11.30pm after a long day I'm none the wiser. I'm going for 7. The No Ball, two of the three runs they ran with first one not counting as they didn't cross and the boundary.

 

[BoyBrumby]

First off, this particular piece of law I wouldn't try to explain on the field (!), it is the most complex part, in my opinion.

You're not entirely wrong with what you are saying, in that a second shot in itself doesn't allow batsmen to score runs (they can of course attempt them, and the umpires will then disallow them after the first run has been completed, or the ball reaches the boundary (think of how it works when leg byes are disallowed)).

What you've lost me on is how the batsmen running relates to the intention of that second shot, and you seemed to suggest that if a batsman started to run it would then mean he was out, as it showed that he wasn't solely guarding his wicket? It's an interesting reading of the laws, and one I've not heard before. Generally though it is the position of the ball in relation to the wicket (in this case about to fall on top of them!) that is used as an indicator as to what the intention of the second shot was.

That was sort of my point about the law being ambiguous. If a batsman runs then I'd argue that defence wasn't his sole intention. He's either (as I did in fact) showing an ignorance of the law regarding second hits or attempting a scoring shot.

Have to admit I've never seen a batsman run on a second hit in actual play tho, so I suspect it's quite well-known amongst pros.

 

[wisden18]

That was sort of my point about the law being ambiguous. If a batsman runs then I'd argue that defence wasn't his sole intention. He's either (as I did in fact) showing an ignorance of the law regarding second hits or attempting a scoring shot.

Have to admit I've never seen a batsman run on a second hit in actual play tho, so I suspect it's quite well-known amongst pros.

Not to keep banging on about this (!). But if you look at the laws, there is a penalty laid down if the batsmen do run (before any overthrow), namely that the run is disallowed (as per leg byes being disallowed).

I fail to see how you can describe a batsman hitting a ball which is about to hit his stumps as a scoring shot. The mere fact that after the batsman has guarded his wicket he then decides to run does not convert a shot which was solely in order to guard his wicket into a scoring shot.

 

[zaremba]

I've read the law and at 11.30pm after a long day I'm none the wiser.

Judge to FE Smith (famous barrister): "Mr Smith, I've listened to your submissions for over an hour and I'm none the wiser."

FE Smith: "None the wiser, My Lord, but somewhat better informed."

(His client got convicted, and hanged)

 

[wisden18]

I've read the law and at 11.30pm after a long day I'm none the wiser. I'm going for 7. The No Ball, two of the three runs they ran with first one not counting as they didn't cross and the boundary.

Have another try tomorrow as sadly that isn't the correct answer.