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

[Bijed]

One scenario which I've always wondered about - say a spin bowler see's a batsman advancing down the pitch, stops his action, and the delivers the ball over the batsman's head where the keeper completes the stumping

Would this be out?

I'm fairly sure this happened in a test relatively recently off Moeen Ali's bowling and it wasn't out - fair enough that it wasn't a stumping because it would have been a no ball, but a run out would have seemed fair enough? I'll try and find it

Edit: found it

 

[trundler]

What if the batsman is halfway down the pitch and the ball suddenly dips to a full toss's height?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

He's advancing down the wicket- candidate for run out and NOT stumping.

 

[Daemon]

Lol no. Can't be stumped off a no ball.

 

[Burgey]

Has ***** provided an answer to the question everyone wants answered, namely why is he such a ****?

 

[cnerd123]

You need to be attempting a run to be out runout. It's a bit subjective but usually advancing down the track to a bowler wouldn't count.

Also I believe that pausing in your action can be deemed as unfair play, so even if you were successful doing it you'd probably get no balled anyways.

 

[cnerd123]

What if the batsman is halfway down the pitch and the ball suddenly dips to a full toss's height?

I've seen cases where a batsman thinks he's getting a big high no ball, but the ball drops past them and goes on to hit the stumps.

They're out bowled unfortunately. The rule technically is that it's a no ball if it would have the batsman above waist height at the crease in his normal umpright stance. While it's possible for a ball to be a noball under this law and still go on to hit the stumps (especially for short batsmen), common sense applies.

 

[Midwinter]

no more lobs then ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What if the batsman is halfway down the pitch and the ball suddenly dips to a full toss's height?

It wouldn't physically happen anyway. The batsman would have plenty of time to wander back into the crease if the bowler did that. And why would the bowler do that instead of just throw it down leg or wide outside off instead? Makes no sense.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I honestly don't see why pausing or changing your bowling action is a problem. Providing said action is still legal, it really shouldn't matter imo

 

[cnerd123]

Well it falls under unfair play because both batsmen can't anticipate the pause and how long you'll pause for. I personally don't mind a pause either, but when you leave it open to umpire interpretation and have grey areas, it can lead to trouble.

For example - say you're bowling as usual, and the non-striker times his running based on when you release the ball under your regular action. One ball you suddenly pause in your action, and then catch him out with a mankad. That's unfair isn't it? He wasn't backing out of his crease unfairly trying to take an advantage, he was just running based on your regular action. He was doing a perfectly legal thing till you deceived him with the pause. Getting a dismissal this way goes against the intention of said dismissal. Therefore, there needed to be a rule to ensure that, in such circumstances, the non-striker wouldn't be out.

Similarly, how long is a pause justified for? At what point have you gone from 'pausing' in the action to then simply not releasing the ball? A batsman will understandably lower his guard when he see's you've stopped in your action - if 5 seconds later you whirl your arms around and fire the ball into the stumps, is he to blame for not being ready to play it? Do we leave it in the umpire's hand to determine when the pause has gone on for too long? You know they'll be inconsistent with their application of it. They are only humans. Or do we add to the list of tasks the umpire already has and ask him to start timing how long the pause is, and introduce an arbitrary cut off in the laws now as to when a ball goes from live to dead during a pause in action?

 

[Howe_zat]

I'd be guessing so if the ball fell apart to the point where it was unusable. I'm not sure how quickly that would happen. When Lance Gibbs took 8/38 at Bridgetown in '52 that was with a 185 over old ball. The new ball in WI at the time was at 200 runs and India never made it.

Of course I doubt that ball would have fit through the gauge they use these days.

The fact that a side took more than 185 overs to reach 200 should be the sort of thing people bear in mind while complaining about over rates compared to the 60s.

 

[Starfighter]

The fact that a side took more than 185 overs to reach 200 should be the sort of thing people bear in mind while complaining about over rates compared to the 60s.

You're wide of the mark there. Slow over rates was a well complained about phenomenon in the sixties, though rates were usually about ten overs a day faster than today. That match was an exceptionally slow one, India's innings was the slowest innings of comparable size (I'm not sue it was the slowest all out innings, I think a pre-1900 innings may have been slower) until South Africa surpassed them in India on their horror tour a few years ago. Most matches weren't that slow run scoring wise.

 

[AndrewB]

In 100 overs play in the 1960s you could expect to see (on average) a score of about 250-8; about the same as you could expect in 80 overs now.

 

[Starfighter]

In 100 overs play in the 1960s you could expect to see (on average) a score of about 250-8; about the same as you could expect in 80 overs now.

I pointed that out in a very lengthy post about the 28/29 Ashes. Run rates have increased but runs/time has remained much more stable.

 

[Dan]

You're playing a multi-day match. The team batting first is 8/287, two minutes before the scheduled close. A wicket falls on the final ball of the over (assume that more than the minimum overs have been bowled for the day).

The #11 is not present at the ground.

What's your ruling?

 

[Burgey]

Drop him for the next game.

 

[cnerd123]

You're playing a multi-day match. The team batting first is 8/287, two minutes before the scheduled close. A wicket falls on the final ball of the over (assume that more than the minimum overs have been bowled for the day).

The #11 is not present at the ground.

What's your ruling?

It's the end of the days play when the 9th wicket falls. Go off the field, and the number 11 has to be out there in the middle for the first over next morning.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I was reminded of this incident recently by an old acquaintance. It happened in 1989 and I’d forgotten it by the following week.
A one day, one innings match at very low level that could be drawn. Not limited overs and one team could bat the whole match if they were stupid.
One ball to go and 9 wickets down for the team batting second who had no realistic chance of winning. The last ball was what should have been a wide but the umpire didn’t call it because it would have been detrimental to the batting side. It was a nothing match, but a last ball scenario that’s possible at the highest level. The controversy didn’t last beyond the pie and pint after the match, but I don’t know if the umpire was correct.

 

[Teja.]

I think batsman who can play well at different gears are ideal. Gavaskar had a SR of about 45 which was standard for the average top order batsman of his era but he could score run-a-ball centuries against the GOAT fast bowling attack and also play a grindy 30 SR style when batting to save a match. This is different from a different 45 SR batsman who had nowhere near the attacking/defensive range of Gavaskar.

Another batsman who was great at this is ABDv.