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

[Line and Length]

The batsman hits a ball to the top of the stumps on the full, where it ricochets off upwards and is caught by a fielder. Is the batsman out?

I presume you mean the stumps at the non-striker's end. Yes, he is out.

When I was umpiring we were given a similar scenario ... with twist. The shot deflects off the bowlers fingers onto the stumps with the non-striker out of his ground. The ball carries to mid-on and is caught. Who is out?

 

[Line and Length]

And this scenario happened in a game I was standing in. The batsman played a mis-timed sweep shot into the pitch and the ball bounced up and ballooned off his bat to the 'keeper. There was a half-hearted appeal and the batsman 'walked'. Should I have recalled him?

 

[cnerd123]

And this scenario happened in a game I was standing in. The batsman played a mis-timed sweep shot into the pitch and the ball bounced up and ballooned off his bat to the 'keeper. There was a half-hearted appeal and the batsman 'walked'. Should I have recalled him?

you gave it not out. If the batter still walks that's his own decision, would technically be retired out I think.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I presume you mean the stumps at the non-striker's end. Yes, he is out.

When I was umpiring we were given a similar scenario ... with twist. The shot deflects off the bowlers fingers onto the stumps with the non-striker out of his ground. The ball carries to mid-on and is caught. Who is out?

Ball is dead once the non-striker is out, isn't it?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Technically a wicket only falls if there's an appeal. So if there'd been no time for a run out appeal and they appeal for the catch the striker would be out - maybe.

 

[cnerd123]

Technically a wicket only falls if there's an appeal. So if there'd been no time for a run out appeal and they appeal for the catch the striker would be out - maybe.

Actually the umpire is to consider an appeal to be inclusive of all possible dismissals, so if they're aware that the runout occurred then I think they should give that out as it happened first, regardless of if the fielding team have realised it.

 

[Line and Length]

The ruling is a catch takes precedence over a run out.

 

[Shady Slim]

Actually the umpire is to consider an appeal to be inclusive of all possible dismissals, so if they're aware that the runout occurred then I think they should give that out as it happened first, regardless of if the fielding team have realised it.

The ruling is a catch takes precedence over a run out.

ooooooh controversy!!

i think we need to get noted umpire biryani pillow here to resolve this

 

[ataraxia]

The ruling is a catch takes precedence over a run out.

That's a good point, doesn't a catch always take precedent?

e.g. plumb lbw, then ball hits bat and carries to third slip, it would be a catch.

Or because the batsmen are different, does that rule not apply?

 

[honestbharani]

I always assumed it was the dismissal that happened first chronologically. So, in case of LBWs where after the ball hits the pad, it also takes the glove and goes to short leg, if the umpire gives it LBW, that is what takes precedence, no?

 

[Shady Slim]

i think that L+L's right in that whatever's temporally first doesn't always take priority - we've seen a million times a batsman probably be dunzo leg before and get bowled, and it's only ever the bowled he gets marched for to my mind right?

 

[Line and Length]

The run out v caught scenario was a question in our umpire's school (conducted by very experienced umpires). I can't imagine it eventuating as I've seen nothing remotely like it in almost 300 games as a player and 150+ as an umpire.
I recall one game I umpired and there was a vociferous appeal for a bat-pad catch. "I never hit it!" the batsman claimed over a drink. "Didn't you check the scorebook?" I asked, "I gave you lbw."
"Fair enough, but they weren't appealing for lbw," he said.

 

[cnerd123]

The ruling is a catch takes precedence over a run out.

Yea this is correct, Law 33.5. I just wanted to point out to LT that the umpire is meant to interpret an appeal to cover all possibilities. Like the example you gave in the above post. They may have been appealing for the bat pad but you did the right thing by giving the LBW anyways.

I had a similar incident in one of my first games as umpire. A spinner was bowling, the batsman gets a thin edge behind and I heard the nick. However the keeper whipped off the bails in the same motion and, out of habit, appealed to the square leg umpire for the stumping. The bowler is covering his bases and is appealing to both of us, the slip fielder is appealing for the edge. At this point I made the mistake of waiting for my partner at square leg to give the stumping not out before giving the batter out caught behind. I did this because I thought the appeal was made to him first and so he had to respond before I did. The square leg umpire was a former ICC Development panel umpire, he told me after that dismissal that I got this wrong and should not have waited for him. Catch takes precedence over stumping and an appeal covers all possibilities, so if I knew he was out I should have just given him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

***** claiming to have known the correct rule all along is the highlight here.

Besides that what happened to biryani pillow? I don’t remember any of his posts, but remember Googling his name.

 

[cnerd123]

***** claiming to have known the correct rule all along is the highlight here.

Not really, it just didn't occur to me when I made that post. Went and checked it today. The fact that I've made a similar mistake before shows it's a bit of a blind spot!

Biryani has posted in a long while. Didn't he used to umpire county cricket?

 

[JBMAC]

Rule 41.6(?) on the subject of "Mankading". I have read that rule and can find no reference to a "common misconception" that the Bowler has to give a "warning" to the non striker or advise the Umpire of what he intends to do. Could you pleasse clarify this rule for me please.

 

[cnerd123]

Rule 41.6(?) on the subject of "Mankading". I have read that rule and can find no reference to a "common misconception" that the Bowler has to give a "warning" to the non striker or advise the Umpire of what he intends to do. Could you pleasse clarify this rule for me please.

The bowler doesn't need to warn the batter or inform the umpire. That's just considered to be 'good manners' by some sections of the cricket fanbase. It's not required at all, perfectly legal for the bowler to run the batter out without it.

 

[JBMAC]

The bowler doesn't need to warn the batter or inform the umpire. That's just considered to be 'good manners' by some sections of the cricket fanbase. It's not required at all, perfectly legal for the bowler to run the batter out without it.

Thank You for your prompt reply