Interesting hypothetical rule question...

[GIMH]

It is kind of illogical. If a team needed one to win, a batsman could hoof one in the air, run one, then be caught. Pretty sure the run wouldn't count and they'd be out, so it's kind of inconsistent.

 

[Prince EWS]

It is kind of illogical. If a team needed one to win, a batsman could hoof one in the air, run one, then be caught. Pretty sure the run wouldn't count and they'd be out, so it's kind of inconsistent.

Haha, I actually think that'd technically be a run and game over before the catch was taken. I can't imagine any umpire ever realistically ruling that way though.

 

[zaremba]

Would the run count in that situation if it wasn't the last ball of the match?

(I'm sure you get a run if you're run out going for a 2nd run, but not sure of the position if you're caught after completing your first run)

 

[zaremba]

OK here's another one.

If a batsman is batting with number 11, and the fielding captain sets the field back to save the 2s and 4s and to offer him the single, can the batsman run only just halfway up the pitch, cross with the non-striker, and then immediately return - thus scoring 1 run (and 1 short) and retaining the strike?

I know the answer must be no but I'd like a Laws nerd to tell me why.

 

[silentstriker]

Law 18 states:

The score shall be reckoned by runs. A run is scored
(a) so often as the batsmen, at any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end

In terms of deliberate short runs, the run would be disallowed:

5. Deliberate short runs
(a) Notwithstanding 4 above, if either umpire considers that either or both batsmen deliberately run short at his end, the following procedure shall be adopted.
(i) The umpire concerned shall, when the ball is dead, warn the batsmen that the practice is unfair, indicate that this is a first and final warning and inform the other umpire of what has occurred. This warning shall continue to apply throughout the innings. The umpire shall so inform each incoming batsman.
(ii) The batsmen shall return to their original ends.
(iii) Whether a batsman is dismissed or not, the umpire at the bowler's end shall disallow all runs to the batting side from that delivery other than the penalty for a No ball or Wide, or penalties under Laws 42.5 (Deliberate distraction or obstruction of batsman) and 42.13 (Fielders damaging the pitch), if applicable.
(iv) The umpire at the bowler’s end shall inform the scorers as to the number of runs scored.

(b) If there is any further instance of deliberate short running by any batsman in that innings, when the ball is dead the umpire concerned shall inform the other umpire of what has occurred and the procedure set out in (a)(ii) and (iii) above shall be repeated. Additionally, the umpire at the bowler’s end shall
(i) award 5 penalty runs to the fielding side. See Law 42.17 (Penalty runs).
(ii) inform the scorers as to the number of runs scored.
(iii) inform the batsmen, the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of the reason for this action.
(iv) report the occurrence, with the other umpire, to the Executive of the batting side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and player or players concerned.

 

[zaremba]

Thanks SS. That pretty much deals with it!

 

[Goughy]

Haha, I actually think that'd technically be a run and game over before the catch was taken. I can't imagine any umpire ever realistically ruling that way though.

It is out without any runs being added. 32.5

I must say that Im a little suprised at the confusion that some pretty simple situations detailed in this thread have caused amongst knowledgeable cricket fans.

 

[Prince EWS]

It is out without any runs being added. 32.5

I must say that Im a little suprised at the confusion that some pretty simple situations detailed in this thread have caused amongst knowledgeable cricket fans.

I'm not sure 32.5 would come into effect though - technically anyway - because the game would be over before the ball was caught. Would be the batsman actually be dismissed caught after the game was over, thus changing the result?

It seems like a really stupid question, I agree, but it does seem to follow the same logic as not allowing a four if a batsman runs two before it hits the ropes and that wins them the game, which actually does happen. Either the game is over and the ball is dead after the winning runs have been completed, or it isn't.

 

[Goughy]

I'm not sure 32.5 would come into effect though - technically anyway - because the game would be over before the ball was caught. Would be the batsman actually be dismissed caught after the game was over, thus changing the result?

It seems like a really stupid question, I agree, but it does seem to follow the same logic as not allowing a four if a batsman runs two before it hits the ropes and that wins them the game, which actually does happen. Either the game is over and the ball is dead after the winning runs have been completed, or it isn't.

32.5 clearly is in effect.

Im not saying that these are stupid questions as no such thing exists. We only ever find things out by asking, but the things mentioned in this thread are simple that I would expect most with a background in the game to already know the answer to from just being around the game even if they did not know the exact law. That is why Im suprised, not because the question is a bad question. There is never anything wrong with not knowing an answer, I just thought given the standard of people posting on the forum that most people would.

 

[GIMH]

To make it clear, I wasn't asking a question, just stating an anomale between the different circumstances

 

[Prince EWS]

32.5 clearly is in effect.

Im not saying that these are stupid questions as no such thing exists. We only ever find things out by asking, but the things mentioned in this thread are simple that I would expect most with a background in the game to already know the answer to from just being around the game even if they did not know the exact law. That is why Im suprised, not because the question is a bad question. There is never anything wrong with not knowing an answer, I just thought given the standard of people posting on the forum that most people would.

Well I know what practically happens in the situation; I was querying the logic behind it and another law, as was GIMH. I struggle to see how the two interpretations can co-exist as it stands tbh - the interpretation of how many runs the batsman gets seems to suggest the ball is dead the moment the winning run is run, but the obvious exception to this is the complete-a-run-then-get-caught scenerio, which is always given as out and suggests that the ball is not dead at all when the winning run is run.

Why does 32.5 come into play after the winning runs have been accomplished while 19.5 does not? I know it works that way from experience, but technically and logically I can't see why one would apply after the potential end of the game and one would not.

What I was essentially suggesting was that the notion of a boundary not being awarded if the winning runs are run before the ball crosses the boundary, as nowhere in any of the laws does it say the ball is dead when the winning runs are hit, and other interpretations (for example - the application of 32.5 even after the game would have been won) completely contradict it. Yet it happens anyway.

 

[Josh]

8. Out from a Wide
When Wide ball has been called, neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws except 33 (Handled the ball), 35 (Hit wicket), 37 (Obstructing the field), 38 (Run out) or 39 (Stumped).

Would be out.

How would one "handle the ball" on a wide??

Considering that once the ball has touched the striker's bat or person, it cannot be called a wide.

 

[Josh]

Well I know what practically happens in the situation; I was querying the logic behind it and another law, as was GIMH. I struggle to see how the two interpretations can co-exist as it stands tbh - the interpretation of how many runs the batsman gets seems to suggest the ball is dead the moment the winning run is run, but the obvious exception to this is the complete-a-run-then-get-caught scenerio, which is always given as out and suggests that the ball is not dead at all when the winning run is run.

Why does 32.5 come into play after the winning runs have been accomplished while 19.5 does not? I know it works that way from experience, but technically and logically I can't see why one would apply after the potential end of the game and one would not.

What I was essentially suggesting was that the notion of a boundary not being awarded if the winning runs are run before the ball crosses the boundary, as nowhere in any of the laws does it say the ball is dead when the winning runs are hit, and other interpretations (for example - the application of 32.5 even after the game would have been won) completely contradict it. Yet it happens anyway.

Simple way to fix this quandary is to reinstate the fact that if a boundary is hit to win the game when less than 4 or 6 runs are required, then all of the boundary runs count.

I understand what you're getting at, it's definitely, if you take a strict, technical view at things, a bit of a weird one considering there's no consistency between the two rulings. Does a dismissal trump the awarding of runs in the same situation. If so; why, and so on?

 

[honestbharani]

Would the run count in that situation if it wasn't the last ball of the match?

(I'm sure you get a run if you're run out going for a 2nd run, but not sure of the position if you're caught after completing your first run)

The thing is, if you hit the ball in the air, it is not deeemed runs or wickets until it either crosses the boundary or hits the turf.. So whatever runs you run till that will not count as we don't even know if the ball is a wicket or not...

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not sure 32.5 would come into effect though - technically anyway - because the game would be over before the ball was caught. Would be the batsman actually be dismissed caught after the game was over, thus changing the result?

It seems like a really stupid question, I agree, but it does seem to follow the same logic as not allowing a four if a batsman runs two before it hits the ropes and that wins them the game, which actually does happen. Either the game is over and the ball is dead after the winning runs have been completed, or it isn't.

yeah but there is a difference between a ball that goes along the ground and one that is still up in the air.. With the first, there is no chance of a dismissal apart from a run out, so the runs do come into it.. But in the second, you can be caught until it has crossed the boundary and/or hit the turf.. So yeah, it is a simple situation, tbh..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Great question.

There's another query which raises a similar issue of whether you approach things strictly chronologically (along the lines of "it was a wide before it was a wicket").

Suppose a batsman needs one run to score the game, and hits a four, but before the ball reaches the boundary he and his partner complete one run. How many runs does the batsman score? My understanding is that they only score one, presumably on the "strict chronology" basis, harsh though that would be on a batsman who's on 96 not out before facing that last ball.

I'm not 100% convinced that the "strict chronlogy" approach should necessarily apply in either case.

A case similar to this caused one of the longest standing anomalies in the Test Cricket Record books. Australia held the world record for a fourth innings victory in which the most runs were scored at 404 for 3. In 1976 India were set 403 but with the scores level a four was hit taking the score to 406. This went into the record books as the highest fourth innings total to win a Test but there was much dispute as to whether it should be the record as they were set a smaller total.

 

[GIMH]

What was your opinion on said debate?

 

[Jamee999]

I'd say the match ends as soon as the wide is bowled.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What was your opinion on said debate?

There's was no arguing that India's score was the "highest" but I still thought the actual record should have stayed as Australia's.

 

[bryce]

I'd say the match ends as soon as the wide is bowled.

Great post