Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[honestbharani]

Then I guess it should remain out as batsman has to be in his crease when the ball is in play as otherwise he is always open to being run out.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What if the run out occurs before the lbw is given out, then overturned?

Then the third umpire checks in chronological order. Checks the runout first then the lbw. If the lbw is given first, it's a dead ball and the runout doesn't count.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Then the third umpire checks in chronological order. Checks the runout first then the lbw. If the lbw is given first, it's a dead ball and the runout doesn't count.

Is this the actual rules or just what you think the logical answer is?

And wouldn't it make sense to compare the time that the lbw is given with the time that the run out is given? Because if you're counting the chronological time of the run out as when the ball hits the stumps, is the chronological time of the lbw when the ball hits the pad?

 

[honestbharani]

Opens up all kinds of weird possibilities and I dont recall there being any precedent either in any form of domestic or international cricket. And by domestic, I mean FC, List A and T20 games.

 

[ankitj]

I don't think Ganguly as India's all time Test Captain is particularly controversial.

His place in test team is quite questionable. There are many better batsmen for that spot.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is this the actual rules or just what you think the logical answer is?

And wouldn't it make sense to compare the time that the lbw is given with the time that the run out is given? Because if you're counting the chronological time of the run out as when the ball hits the stumps, is the chronological time of the lbw when the ball hits the pad?

No I have no idea what actually happens. I'm just guessing what it should be.

The time should be when the umpire makes a decision, because that's when it's dead ball, not when the team appeals (ie) when it hits the pad.

 

[TheJediBrah]

His place in test team is quite questionable. There are many better batsmen for that spot.

Ganguly wouldn't make an Indian all time 4th XI

given India's historical strengths he's more likely to make it as a back-up seam bowler than a batsman

 

[cnerd123]

I'm sure the ICC Playing Conditions have something in them for DRS, but I cbf looking them up now. Just going off what I know, I think this is what happens:

This question seems to hinge on what order the events happen.

So say the batsman gets hit on the pad and the bowler appeals. The batsman sets off for a run. The umpire is taking his time to make his decision. The ball is still live. There is then a runout attempt and appeal, The ball will go dead after the stumps have been broken and the batsmen stop running.

Between the ball going live and the ball going dead, there were two appeals for the umpires to process. The one that came first will take precedence. So the bowler's end umpire has to deal with the LBW appeal first, and then the umpire at the end of the runout has to deal with the runout appeal. It could be the same umpire making both calls, or two different ones, doesn't matter. The LBW appeal came first, it takes precedence.

If the bowler's end umpire gives the LBW appeal not-out, they then proceed to make a decision on the runout appeal.

If the the LBW is given out, then the runout appeal is null and void. The ball is considered dead from the moment the batsmen is struck on the pad. Any legbyes ran or runouts made after that are irrelevant. The new incoming batsman will take strike (unless this was the last ball of the over).

However, if the batsman is given out and then succesfully reviews the decision, this is -from my understanding- equivalent to the umpires giving the LBW appeal not-out (since the umpire overturns his decision). Therefore, all the stuff that happened after the ball impacted the pad still counts. So if, for instance, the ball had gone off the pad for a boundary - they would get those four runs. Any legbyes scored are still valid. And likewise, the runout appeal after the LBW appeal is still valid and needs to be investigated.

Under this sequence of events, the batsman can be out runout after getting his LBW appeal over turned.

Under a different sequence of events, however, you get a different result.

If the batsman gets hit on the pad, sets off for a run, sees the umpire raise his finger, and is then runout...then there is actually only one appeal made between the ball being live and going dead. The LBW appeal. The runout appeal has been made after the ball has gone dead, and therefore no longer counts, and thus doesn't need to be investigated if the batsman successfully overturns his LBW decision.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm sure the ICC Playing Conditions have something in them for DRS, but I cbf looking them up now. Just going off what I know, I think this is what happens:

This question seems to hinge on what order the events happen.

So say the batsman gets hit on the pad and the bowler appeals. The batsman sets off for a run. The umpire is taking his time to make his decision. The ball is still live. There is then a runout attempt and appeal, The ball will go dead after the stumps have been broken and the batsmen stop running.

Between the ball going live and the ball going dead, there were two appeals for the umpires to process. The one that came first will take precedence. So the bowler's end umpire has to deal with the LBW appeal first, and then the umpire at the end of the runout has to deal with the runout appeal. It could be the same umpire making both calls, or two different ones, doesn't matter. The LBW appeal came first, it takes precedence.

If the bowler's end umpire gives the LBW appeal not-out, they then proceed to make a decision on the runout appeal.

If the the LBW is given out, then the runout appeal is null and void. The ball is considered dead from the moment the batsmen is struck on the pad. Any legbyes ran or runouts made after that are irrelevant. The new incoming batsman will take strike (unless this was the last ball of the over).

However, if the batsman is given out and then succesfully reviews the decision, this is -from my understanding- equivalent to the umpires giving the LBW appeal not-out (since the umpire overturns his decision). Therefore, all the stuff that happened after the ball impacted the pad still counts. So if, for instance, the ball had gone off the pad for a boundary - they would get those four runs. Any legbyes scored are still valid. And likewise, the runout appeal after the LBW appeal is still valid and needs to be investigated.

Under this sequence of events, the batsman can be out runout after getting his LBW appeal over turned.

Under a different sequence of events, however, you get a different result.

If the batsman gets hit on the pad, sets off for a run, sees the umpire raise his finger, and is then runout...then there is actually only one appeal made between the ball being live and going dead. The LBW appeal. The runout appeal has been made after the ball has gone dead, and therefore no longer counts, and thus doesn't need to be investigated if the batsman successfully overturns his LBW decision.

But then it gets murky, eg. what if the Batsman has reason to claim that he didn't make as much of an effort to get back in his crease because he was given out lbw

 

[cnerd123]

But then it gets murky, eg. what if the Batsman has reason to claim that he didn't make as much of an effort to get back in his crease because he was given out lbw

I've covered that. If the LBW was given out before the runout happened, he won't be out runout.

If the umpire hasn't made his decision yet, and the runout appeal happens before the umpire can make his decision, the batsman can still be runout.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes but that's not what I'm saying.

I've covered that. If the LBW was given out before the runout happened, he won't be out runout.

In this case the fielding side may have every right to feel aggrieved if the batsman was run out easily yet it doesn't count because the incorrect lbw decision was made

All I'm saying is that there's plenty of potential for conflict.

 

[cnerd123]

eh potential for conflict exists in all of Cricket's rules. Even getting a batsman bowled. How many times have we seen the ball hit the stumps but the bails stay on?

It's why we have umpires to begin with, and why the Laws give them license to make whatever decision they want to and have it be final.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah *****, if the on field umpire gives it out and the batsman reviews it, I still think for the purposes of the run out, the ball will be considered dead from the moment the ball hit the pads. The review is a secondary sequence of events but the on field call was made as out and that is what will count with respect to when the ball goes "dead".

 

[cnerd123]

Nah *****, if the on field umpire gives it out and the batsman reviews it, I still think for the purposes of the run out, the ball will be considered dead from the moment the ball hit the pads. The review is a secondary sequence of events but the on field call was made as out and that is what will count with respect to when the ball goes "dead".

Yes thats what I said too

If the umpire gives it out before the runout appeal. the ball is dead at that moment. The appeal happens after the ball is deadm and so doesn't count.

If the umpire has yet to give his decision on the LBW appeal at the time of the runout appeal, the umpires then have two appeals to deal with. The ball goes dead after the runout appeal, and they with look at the both in order of occurence.

 

[Daemon]

http://static.icc-cricket.com/ugc/d...6A8BD5FA8742FA636A83951_1306651186327_548.pdf

3.6. Dead ball
a) If following a Player Review request, an original decision of ‘’Out’’ is changed to ‘’Not Out’’, then the
ball is still deemed to have become dead when the original decision was made (as per Law 23.1(a)(iii)).
The batting side, while benefiting from the reversal of the dismissal, will not benefit from any runs that
may subsequently have accrued from the delivery had the on-field umpire originally made a ‘’Not Out‟
decision, other than any No Balls penalty that could arise under 3.3 (g) above.

b) If an original decision of ‘’Not Out’’ is changed to ‘’Out’’, the ball will retrospectively be deemed to
have become dead from the moment of the dismissal event. All subsequent events, including any runs
scored, are ignored.

there ya go

 

[honestbharani]

Yes thats what I said too

If the umpire gives it out before the runout appeal. the ball is dead at that moment. The appeal happens after the ball is deadm and so doesn't count.

If the umpire has yet to give his decision on the LBW appeal at the time of the runout appeal, the umpires then have two appeals to deal with. The ball goes dead after the runout appeal, and they with look at the both in order of occurence.

Nah *****, you missed my point. What Daemon posted as 3.6 a is what I was saying in my post.

And shame on you and your umpiring skills. As a casual fan, even I knew the law correctly just by applying some common sense.


EDIT: Shame on me actually. I didn't read the full law. So there is still a grey area as the law only states "when the decision was made" and not "when the ball hit the pads"/

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's about as good as you can make it I guess.

I'd be pretty pissed off though as the fielding side if the batsman was run out easily but we don't get the wicket because the incorrect lbw decision was made a millisecond before the ball hit the stumps

 

[cnerd123]

Nah *****, you missed my point. What Daemon posted as 3.6 a is what I was saying in my post.

And shame on you and your umpiring skills. As a casual fan, even I knew the law correctly just by applying some common sense.

Eh you're working with less information to begin with so your mind is less likely to wander off into different scenarios and how they should logically be put together in unusual circumstances.


The number 1 rule is, as always, check the playing conditions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Eh you're working with less information to begin with so your mind is less likely to wander off into different scenarios and how they should logically be put together in unusual circumstances.


The number 1 rule is, as always, check the playing conditions.

Using this on friends and co-workers thanks

 

[marc71178]

41.5 full and straight on middle and leg, Taylor looks for a flick and seems to have almost fallen over. Big appeal from the bowler, umpire Dar thinks and then gives it. Taylor immediately reviews it and it appears the ball might be skating down leg. Century still on the cards, it would seem. Funnily though, Aaron Finch had come up and started shaking hands with Taylor thinking the match was done. But wait, Dharmasena was checking for the run-out as the batsmen were looking to sneak a leg bye and it appears Maxwell has found his target to leave Anderson short of his ground. But how can that be considering Dar had given it out lbw and that means the ball should be dead, right? The question is, was he run out before the umpire's finger came up or was it after.... Taylor keeps telling it is dead ball, repeating it over and over, but Australia are already shaking hands and the umpires confirm that Anderson is indeed run out 231/10

This is the one I was talking about.