New Cricket Trivia - 'SJS format'

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Fair enough, as I said I don't pretend to be an expert & I except I'm wrong as per the accepted interpretation of the law, but it looks like umpires are venturing into the realms of psychoanalysis of the shot to me. One interpretation is that, yes, he was only defending his stumps but if a player hits the ball and runs the fact that defence wasn't his sole intention is equally supported by the evidence; it may have been his primary intention even, but the law isn't phrased like that. It isn't like there's a long pause between a batter playing a shot & running, it's usually a matter of fractions of seconds.

Just for clarity, if the ball wasn't going to hit the stumps & the batsman hit it again he would be out? Otherwise I can't see how anyone could be out hitting the ball twice. Even then tho there's room for dispute; couldn't a batsman argue he thought he was defending his stumps?

 

[wisden18]

Just for clarity, if the ball wasn't going to hit the stumps & the batsman hit it again he would be out? Otherwise I can't see how anyone could be out hitting the ball twice. Even then tho there's room for dispute; couldn't a batsman argue he thought he was defending his stumps?

Yes, this is basically what the law is designed for. If the ball was not in danger of hitting the wicket then the batsman can be said not to be acting in guarding his wicket, as it didn't need guarding (is essentially the idea). I agree there is room for dispute, and obviously each situation would need to be judged by the umpires there and then. However, what is clear in the situation I presented was that the ball was hit in order to stop it from hitting the stumps.

... but it looks like umpires are venturing into the realms of psychoanalysis of the shot to me. One interpretation is that, yes, he was only defending his stumps but if a player hits the ball and runs the fact that defence wasn't his sole intention is equally supported by the evidence; it may have been his primary intention even, but the law isn't phrased like that. It isn't like there's a long pause between a batter playing a shot & running, it's usually a matter of fractions of seconds.

Well I see what you are saying. However, I'm still not sure I agree. If the ball is about to hit the stumps, and the batsman hits the ball away I think most people would agree that at the point of hitting it his intention was to guard his wicket. Any activities subsequent to that (i.e. him running) wouldn't suggest any different. He may well decide, after having stopped the ball hitting the stumps, that it'd be a good idea to run, but I wouldn't suggest that it was an influence on his decision to hit the ball a second time.

 

[SJS]

I am not reading the complete 'string' of questions and answers and counter questions and answers since it is a bit 'too much' so early in the morning. But from a second reading of the original query, here is my take.

The basic issue that needs to be settled is whether the batsman (when he struck the ball a second time) was doing it for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket. If it was indeed for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket, he would have no reason to run to add to his tally from the result of that 'second hit' because it 'taints' the 'sole purpose' notion. So the umpire just needs to decide whether he is out or not out. If he is out, their are no runs any way other than the no ball. If he is not out it is because he struck the ball the second time just to guard his wicket and, having guarded it, he should jolly well stay put and await the next delivery.

In both cases it is just one run to be scored.

 

[wisden18]

I am not reading the complete 'string' of questions and answers and counter questions and answers since it is a bit 'too much' so early in the morning. But from a second reading of the original query, here is my take.

The basic issue that needs to be settled is whether the batsman (when he struck the ball a second time) was doing it for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket. If it was indeed for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket, he would have no reason to run to add to his tally from the result of that 'second hit' because it 'taints' the 'sole purpose' notion. So the umpire just needs to decide whether he is out or not out. If he is out, their are no runs any way other than the no ball. If he is not out it is because he struck the ball the second time just to guard his wicket and, having guarded it, he should jolly well stay put and await the next delivery.

In both cases it is just one run to be scored.

Hi SJS, BoyBrumby made the same point, however this is incorrect, as I've explained at length (!).

The second hit, does not disbar a batsman from running, and it clearly seems this is a general misconception.

 

[SJS]

Hi SJS, BoyBrumby made the same point, however this is incorrect, as I've explained at length (!).

The second hit, does not disbar a batsman from running, and it clearly seems this is a general misconception.

You may be correct, but if so, it needs amendment. In this hypothetical case, for example, the batsman, if he had the presence of mind, would have been better off, hitting the ball right out of the ground as it was coming down from above after the first edge.

That would have been a mockery of the law and if that had actually happened it would have forced the law makers to change the law.

 

[wisden18]

You may be correct, but if so, it needs amendment. In this hypothetical case, for example, the batsman, if he had the presence of mind, would have been better off, hitting the ball right out of the ground as it was coming down from above after the first edge.

That would have been a mockery of the law and if that had actually happened it would have forced the law makers to change the law.

Well not quite, if I understand what you've put, I take it you mean that if on the batsman's second shot he hits the ball over the boundary that it makes a mockery of cricket if runs are scored. Well the law as it currently stands caters for this situation, if you have a look, and the ball would be called Dead and the runs disallowed (as per Leg Byes being disallowed).

 

[SJS]

The law allows runs to be scored only off the first hit.

1. From the second hit (if the umpire is satisfied that it was only to defend his wicket) runs can be obtained only as penalty runs or over throws including boundaries.

2. The first run (before the throw was made) will also be counted since the throw was made before the batsmen had crossed each other.

3. All sunbsequent completed runs (from the time of the first throw till the time of the second throw are allowed.

4. The run in progress at the time of the first throw will count in this case since the batsman had not crossed and the run in progress at the time of the second throw will; also count as the batsmen HAVE crossed.

5, The boundary will also count.

6. The runs will be credited as No ball extras.

So that is 8 extras to be scored - one for the no ball, three for the runs completed (including the one for which they had crossed (before the second throw was made) and the boundary.

 

[wisden18]

The law allows runs to be scored only off the first hit.

1. From the second hit (if the umpire is satisfied that it was only to defend his wicket) runs can be obtained only as penalty runs or over throws including boundaries.

2. The first run (before the throw was made) will also be counted since the throw was made before the batsmen had crossed each other.

3. All sunbsequent completed runs (from the time of the first throw till the time of the second throw are allowed.

4. The run in progress at the time of the first throw will count in this case since the batsman had not crossed and the run in progress at the time of the second throw will; also count as the batsmen HAVE crossed.

5, The boundary will also count.

6. The runs will be credited as No ball extras.

So that is 8 extras to be scored - one for the no ball, three for the runs completed (including the one for which they had crossed (before the second throw was made) and the boundary.

Very nearly correct, but think again about point 6.

 

[SJS]

Very nearly correct, but think again about point 6.

I stand corrected. 1 extra and 7 runs to the batsman.

 

[wisden18]

I stand corrected. 1 extra and 7 runs to the batsman.

Indeed. Well done, your turn now ....

 

[SJS]

I hold two all time records amongst my countrymen - one each in batting and bowling. Who am I ?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are you from the sub-continent?

 

[SJS]

Q1. Are you from the sub-continent? ..... No.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are you from Australasia?

 

[SJS]

Q2. Are you from Australasia? ..... YES

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are you from Australia?

 

[SJS]

Q3. Are you from Australia? .... YES

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm struggling...

Did you debut post WW2?

 

[stumpski]

Are these both career records, or is one or both related to your performance in a single match?

 

[fredfertang]

Alan Border?