Ask ***** - CricketWeb's 'Ask the umpire' thread

[Bijed]

Without having discussed this whatsoever with *****, I thought it could be a good idea to start a thread where he, as our resident qualified umpire, answers our queries on the laws of cricket, whether they be simple or complicated, thought-provoking or banal.

My first question is: you survive an LBW appeal because the ball is bouncing over the stumps. However, as the ball is spinning quite significantly, it begins to roll towards the stumps. If you were to kick it away or block it using your foot, could you then be given out LBW. If so, do the rules regarding point of impact etc still apply in the normal way?

 

[Daemon]

Don't inflate his ego ffs

biryani pillow is the original (and much more qualified) ump around these parts, as he never fails to remind us.

As for the question, LBWs only consider the first interception point, so you wouldn't be out LBW. Kicking the ball away isn't handling the ball either so you'd be fine.

 

[NUFAN]

*****, what umpire signals satisfy you more than liking a CW post?

 

[cnerd123]

BiryaniPillow isn't active much anymore and is probably getting old, so I'm happy to step up and take his place. Not only am I likely to be an ICC Qualified Umpire by next year (would have been one by this year if I didn't choose to go to a friend's wedding instead), but I also do enjoy bringing this up whenever possible, so I think I'd make for a good replacement

As for the first question, Daemon got it right. LBW is only considered for the first point of contact, not for what happens subsequently, and you are allowed to kick the ball away to protect your stumps

As for Nufan's question - I do quite like the power associated with giving a batsman out. I like to take my time too, just to run over the appeal again in my head before deciding, and so I get to see the whole long drawn out appeal from the bowlers and the fielders, pleading me for the wicket, and just when they're losing hope and starting to shift to incredulity at the thought of me not giving it out, I raise my finger, and up they go dancing and cheering and celebrating. The batsman all this while thinks they've gotten away with it, and then their head drops and they make the long walk back. So close but so far.

I love it.

 

[harsh.ag]

*****, what are some innovative ways in which players can mock umpires while escaping any disciplinary action?

 

[vcs]

Hey *****, how long do you think you have until technology makes you redundant?

 

[cnerd123]

*****, what are some innovative ways in which players can mock umpires while escaping any disciplinary action?

Low level cricket in HK often suffers from very poor umpiring, since you don't need to have any qualifications to actually umpire those games. Each club needs to assign umpires for some games in the season, so while some clubs may have proper umpires in their ranks, many don't.

What this means is that the club cricketers have a habit of constantly testing and questioning the umpires. They do so to assess the competence of an umpire they haven't seen before. They'll ask a lot of dumb questions, and keep it up across the game with a tone of sincerity. Bad umpires will eventually stumble, since they don't really actually know the rules and often get caught napping.

Having seen this, I feel the best way to mock an umpire is to just constantly ask him sincere-sounding dumb questions. Ask him to explain the wide rule to you. At a random point in each over, ask him if the over is up, and if not, how many balls to go. Then disagree with him and let him list out all the deliveries in the over so far. If a catch is taken, always ask him if the batsmen crossed, even if it's plainly obvious if they did or didn't. Every time a batsman flicks the balls off his pads off your bowling, ask the umpire if he'd have given it LBW if the batsman missed.

Small, silly things like that will eventually annoy any umpire. And technically you aren't breaking any rules.

 

[cnerd123]

Hey *****, how long do you think you have until technology makes you redundant?

Technology will never make umpires redundant.

The main role of the Umpire isn't to make decisions on the field. We all think it is, but it really isn't. You can get computers calling no-balls and wides and giving batsmen out.

The real role of the umpire is the functioning of the game. Starting it on time, taking the breaks on time, keeping track of overrates, communicating with the captains, match referee, and where TV is involved, the broadcasters. Umpires need to check if conditions are fit to play, need to handle issues with the boundary and the ball and the stumps, need to handle discipline on the field. Umpires need to know what to do when it rains, when it gets dark, when an injury occurs on the field. Umpires are also needed when abnormal situations occur -like bees invading the field, or the spectators protesting, or the batsmen bringing out a metal bat or wanting to get into a fight with a bowler. Not only does everyone on the field look to the umpires in those moments as to what to do next, but also about what to do when that moment has passed. How do we resume the game, how much time is lost, who gets penalised and how much.

All this sort of stuff is what you really need umpires for. Yet we only assume they are there to make decisions on LBWs. That's just such a small part of the actual job.

 

[Dan]

Why do we need a thread praising Big Pharma incarnate when we could all search this in the Laws?

Big Pharma is right though, umpiring is mostly game management (and, to some degree, knowing when to overlook or bend the laws).

And asking questions without appearing annoying is a very handy thing to be doing -- being an umpire myself in local comps, I generally know the guys taking charge of my games. So I'll discuss things to work out their interpretations and to check if they're following the 2017 laws like they should be, or if the 1992 version embedded itself into their brains and can never be changed.

*****, how do you go with Law 42 on the field? I've got a cheat-sheet matrix that I keep with me because I cbf memorising it all when I'll probably see a breach once in a career (let alone the complete inapplicability of Law 42.12 to astroturf decks).

 

[fredfertang]

BiryaniPillow isn't active much anymore and is probably getting old, so I'm happy to step up and take his place.

Appalled at this ageism to be honest, and the sweeping assumption that increasing age leads to inactivity - we're cricket lovers ffs - we sit around watching other people run about in the sun for pleasure - it's nothing to do with age, it's just an inherent idleness

And as for poor old BP if you were to single him out on the grounds he was LGBT (not that I'm suggesting he is for one moment, although I suppose it must be possible) you'd be rightly castigated - you must learn ***** that the only acceptable discrimination on this forum relates to hailing from Durham

 

[Adders]

Hey *****, how long do you think you have until technology makes you redundant?

***** will never be redundant......not while CW has a like button.

 

[Adders]

Appalled at this ageism to be honest, and the sweeping assumption that increasing age leads to inactivity - we're cricket lovers ffs - we sit around watching other people run about in the sun for pleasure - it's nothing to do with age, it's just an inherent idleness

And as for poor old BP if you were to single him out on the grounds he was LGBT (not that I'm suggesting he is for one moment, although I suppose it must be possible) you'd be rightly castigated - you must learn ***** that the only acceptable discrimination on this forum relates to hailing from Durham

This is brilliant......love your work fred.

 

[cnerd123]

*****, how do you go with Law 42 on the field? I've got a cheat-sheet matrix that I keep with me because I cbf memorising it all when I'll probably see a breach once in a career (let alone the complete inapplicability of Law 42.12 to astroturf decks).

They way I judge if a behaviour is in breach of Law 42 is much like how I'd determine if something was pornography or not - I may not have a clear definition, but I know it when I see it.

 

[Bijed]

A helmet is left near the boundary rope. The ball is struck and, without touching the ground first, bounces off the helmet and over the boundary. Is this a six, or is the helmet considered an 'extension' of the ground or something, meaning only four runs are scored.

 

[Bijed]

Also, please could you explain the wide rule to me

 

[Adders]

A helmet is left near the boundary rope. The ball is struck and, without touching the ground first, bounces off the helmet and over the boundary. Is this a six, or is the helmet considered an 'extension' of the ground or something, meaning only four runs are scored.

5 penalty runs to the batting side I believe.

 

[cnerd123]

A helmet is left near the boundary rope. The ball is struck and, without touching the ground first, bounces off the helmet and over the boundary. Is this a six, or is the helmet considered an 'extension' of the ground or something, meaning only four runs are scored.

Whose helmet is it? If it's the fielding side's, the batting team gets 5 runs, and any runs they have run, and the run in progress if they have already crossed at the moment of impact. The ball is dead upon contact with the helmet.

If it's the batting side's helmet, I can't find any guidelines in the laws on how to handle it. Reality is I should, as an umpire, make sure the batting side's equipment isn't on the field of play during the game. But if I've slipped up and it happened, then how I'd handle it would depend on if the helmet prevented anyone from fielding the ball. If no one was going to stop it, I'd signal 4 and just ask the batting side to not let that happen again. If the presence of the helmet stops the fielder from stopping the ball, I'd call dead ball and then just try to determine if it was deliberate or not. If deliberate and if the fielding side appeals, I'd give the batsman out for obstructing the field. I could also hit the fielding side with a penalty under Law 42. If unintentional, I'd just call the ball dead under 23.4 (vi) - citing the helmet as a distraction to the game.

Also, please could you explain the wide rule to me

So see, the thing with a wide is that the ball must be outside the reach of:
(a) the batsman in his stance at the start of the delivery and
(b) the batsman when the ball passes him

So if the batsman backs away from a delivery trying to turn it into a wide, it won't count, since it may satisfy condition (b) but it doesn't satisfy condition (a)
Similarly, when a batsman reaches for a wide ball, he is bringing it within his reach, so it no longer satisfies (b), even tho it satisfies (a)

The law is harsher in ODIs, where any delivery that is down the legside of a batsman both in (a) and (b) is considered wide, even those it may be well within his reach.

 

[honestbharani]

Technology will never make umpires redundant.

The main role of the Umpire isn't to make decisions on the field. We all think it is, but it really isn't. You can get computers calling no-balls and wides and giving batsmen out.

The real role of the umpire is the functioning of the game. Starting it on time, taking the breaks on time, keeping track of overrates, communicating with the captains, match referee, and where TV is involved, the broadcasters. Umpires need to check if conditions are fit to play, need to handle issues with the boundary and the ball and the stumps, need to handle discipline on the field. Umpires need to know what to do when it rains, when it gets dark, when an injury occurs on the field. Umpires are also needed when abnormal situations occur -like bees invading the field, or the spectators protesting, or the batsmen bringing out a metal bat or wanting to get into a fight with a bowler. Not only does everyone on the field look to the umpires in those moments as to what to do next, but also about what to do when that moment has passed. How do we resume the game, how much time is lost, who gets penalised and how much.

All this sort of stuff is what you really need umpires for. Yet we only assume they are there to make decisions on LBWs. That's just such a small part of the actual job.

Also who will wear the sponsor's logo and be in sight all day during play? How will the good company get their money's worth if the umpires are replaced by technology?


And Adders, irrespective of whether technology renders *****'s role as an umpire redundant or not, I am pretty sure a bot will be invented soon that shall "like" a lot of posts and that day, *****, will be rendered redundant at CW. And it shall be a glorious day.

 

[Dan]

Fielding side helmets must be kept behind the wicketkeeper, so if that occurs I'd be hitting the fielding side with 5 penalty runs (plus runs completed etc etc) under either Law 42.5 (Deliberate distraction of obstruction of batsman) or Law 41.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side).

I wonder if there's an argument for two separate 5 run penalties there?

The ball is immediately dead upon contact with the helmet, so no 4 or 6 is scored.

 

[Burgey]

Dan >>>>>>>> *****.