-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
New Cricket Trivia - 'SJS format'
- Thread starter JASON
- Start date
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No - your circling now like a bird of "prey" that has spotted a small brown richard the third in its nest
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
... and a nickname is born! I'm not sure that "The Third" reads this particular thread though...
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Your a forensic panther Zaremba - that thought hadn't crossed my consciousness
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
nor mine, I've no idea what you're talking about. Let's see what new threads are started in the coming days.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So neither of us know what we're talking about Mr Z - I reckon that probably coincides with public opinion - and I dont just mean the members of cricketweb!
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
OK to return to the point all three have been involved similar litigous activities in the case of two arising directly out of their involvement in the game and the third indirectly so
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
yes and they were all successful in squeezing a few shekels from the press baron concerned
your turn Ollie
your turn Ollie
Sorry about the delay.
Right, some more laws based questions:
1) The batsmen run a single on the last ball of an over. The striker unintentionally just fails to make good his ground at the bowler’s end, and starts to walk unhurriedly towards his partner for a chat. It is clear that both sides regard the ball as dead. Before calling Over, should the umpire call and signal Short run?
2) Law 10.1(e) specifies that the time required for completion of permitted rolling is to be taken out of playing time, if some circumstance prevents the completion before the time scheduled for the next session to start. If, however, the captain does not request the rolling until a good portion of the available time has expired, should the umpires take action - refuse the rolling perhaps?
Answers to both please, with reasons.
Right, some more laws based questions:
1) The batsmen run a single on the last ball of an over. The striker unintentionally just fails to make good his ground at the bowler’s end, and starts to walk unhurriedly towards his partner for a chat. It is clear that both sides regard the ball as dead. Before calling Over, should the umpire call and signal Short run?
2) Law 10.1(e) specifies that the time required for completion of permitted rolling is to be taken out of playing time, if some circumstance prevents the completion before the time scheduled for the next session to start. If, however, the captain does not request the rolling until a good portion of the available time has expired, should the umpires take action - refuse the rolling perhaps?
Answers to both please, with reasons.
stumpski
International Captain
Firstly, I don't see how the first can be 'short run.' A short run can only occur when two or more runs are taken; if the batsman has failed to complete a first run the ball is still 'live' (whether the fielding side realise it or not). If I were the umpire in such a case I think the common-sense approach would be to go down the wicket and inform the batsman that he didn't make his ground, then, after he's hurried back to his end, call 'over.' I realise that it might be seen as favouring the batsman but if the fielding side were too dozy to realise he hadn't made his ground that's their fault.
As for the roller, I don't see how the umpire can take any action. It's his job to ascertain what roller is needed at the end of the previous innings; in the scenario here, it's clear that he's failed to do so. So time might have to be lost.
As for the roller, I don't see how the umpire can take any action. It's his job to ascertain what roller is needed at the end of the previous innings; in the scenario here, it's clear that he's failed to do so. So time might have to be lost.
1) Yes you've hit the nail on the head with this one. The official answer is:
A run is short only when the batsman, having failed to make good his ground, turns for a further run. It is clear that all regard the ball as dead. Clearly the striker is not trying to take a further run when he goes to ‘have a chat’. Therefore, there has not been any short run.
It is true that the run has not in fact been scored, under the definition in Law 18.1(a), but
the umpire is empowered to call Short run only when there is short running. Law 42.2 states very firmly that umpires are not to interfere with the progress of play, unless
either a player’s action is considered unfair
or they are required to do so by the Laws.
The call is not required by Law. The umpire cannot consider the player to be trying to gain an unfair advantage in the situation described. Therefore he cannot intervene.
On the other hand, the batsmen have clearly crossed, so under Law 18.11 (Runs scored
when ball becomes dead) the run in progress when the ball becomes dead will be credited to the batting side.
2) You haven't really got the issue in this one. There is no duty in law for the umpires to ascertain which roller is needed at the end of the previous innings.
So we're still looking for an answer for 2).
A run is short only when the batsman, having failed to make good his ground, turns for a further run. It is clear that all regard the ball as dead. Clearly the striker is not trying to take a further run when he goes to ‘have a chat’. Therefore, there has not been any short run.
It is true that the run has not in fact been scored, under the definition in Law 18.1(a), but
the umpire is empowered to call Short run only when there is short running. Law 42.2 states very firmly that umpires are not to interfere with the progress of play, unless
either a player’s action is considered unfair
or they are required to do so by the Laws.
The call is not required by Law. The umpire cannot consider the player to be trying to gain an unfair advantage in the situation described. Therefore he cannot intervene.
On the other hand, the batsmen have clearly crossed, so under Law 18.11 (Runs scored
when ball becomes dead) the run in progress when the ball becomes dead will be credited to the batting side.
2) You haven't really got the issue in this one. There is no duty in law for the umpires to ascertain which roller is needed at the end of the previous innings.
So we're still looking for an answer for 2).
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I have no idea but would suggest the umpire can do nothing but if time is lost and an appeal is made should rule the opening bat as timed out?
Well clearly none of you are as interested in the laws of the game as you are in statistics (!).
Fred: no, no, no, no, no.
The umpire would not call Play if the striker was not ready to receive the ball, and as such it means in cricket the opening batsmen can never be out timed out. (If, the opening batsmen didn't appear, that it would be a case of investigating whether there was a refusal to play, and then looking at awarding the match, if there was such a refusal to play).
But in this situation the correct answer is:
Law 10.1(e) gives the batting captain the right to have the pitch rolled, even if this means losing playing time, if he is prevented from having it within the allotted time. This is not to be taken as extending to cases where the delay is not caused by the prevailing circumstances. If the delay was due to the groundsman not being available, or the roller not starting, he would have been prevented from having the rolling within the correct time. The same is true if there is a late declaration or forfeiture during an interval. However, once a captain knows that he has the opportunity to request rolling, there should not be, without good reason, a significant delay before he makes the request. Merely to delay the request without some special justifying circumstance cannot be construed as ‘being prevented’. It looks like a ploy to shorten the time his opponents have to bowl at his side. However, it would be impossible to lay down in Law what should be considered ‘significant delay’. It has to be the judgment of the umpires together, having discovered as best they can whether there is any satisfactory reason for the delay.
As to the action to be taken, the umpires have no authority to forbid such rolling. Therolling would have to be allowed, since there is nothing in Law permitting them to withhold it. On the other hand, if the umpires felt - as indeed they might - that the delay in making the request amounted to sharp practice, if not downright cheating, then they should together tell the captain that they considered the action unfair and they would accordingly report the matter under Law 42.18
Clearly my questions are unpopular
so anyone who has a question in mind go ahead and post it.
Fred: no, no, no, no, no.
The umpire would not call Play if the striker was not ready to receive the ball, and as such it means in cricket the opening batsmen can never be out timed out. (If, the opening batsmen didn't appear, that it would be a case of investigating whether there was a refusal to play, and then looking at awarding the match, if there was such a refusal to play).But in this situation the correct answer is:
Law 10.1(e) gives the batting captain the right to have the pitch rolled, even if this means losing playing time, if he is prevented from having it within the allotted time. This is not to be taken as extending to cases where the delay is not caused by the prevailing circumstances. If the delay was due to the groundsman not being available, or the roller not starting, he would have been prevented from having the rolling within the correct time. The same is true if there is a late declaration or forfeiture during an interval. However, once a captain knows that he has the opportunity to request rolling, there should not be, without good reason, a significant delay before he makes the request. Merely to delay the request without some special justifying circumstance cannot be construed as ‘being prevented’. It looks like a ploy to shorten the time his opponents have to bowl at his side. However, it would be impossible to lay down in Law what should be considered ‘significant delay’. It has to be the judgment of the umpires together, having discovered as best they can whether there is any satisfactory reason for the delay.
As to the action to be taken, the umpires have no authority to forbid such rolling. Therolling would have to be allowed, since there is nothing in Law permitting them to withhold it. On the other hand, if the umpires felt - as indeed they might - that the delay in making the request amounted to sharp practice, if not downright cheating, then they should together tell the captain that they considered the action unfair and they would accordingly report the matter under Law 42.18
Clearly my questions are unpopular
so anyone who has a question in mind go ahead and post it.
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Clearly my questions are unpopular
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
OK as no one else wants to:-
I didn't take a single wicket in my first seven seasons in the game but ended up with more than 250 at the end of my career, although in fairness I was mainly a batsman. I hold a county championship record that will never be broken - who am I ?
I didn't take a single wicket in my first seven seasons in the game but ended up with more than 250 at the end of my career, although in fairness I was mainly a batsman. I hold a county championship record that will never be broken - who am I ?