• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hit the ball twice - why is it a mode of dismissal.

G

greg

International Debutant
… other than “because the laws say so”?

A bit of a random question that I have been musing about - what is the origin/rationale for the “hit the ball twice mode of dismissal (and has anyone considered changing it?).

It seems to me on the face of it something that is totally unneeded, especially given its (arguable) subjectivity and range of exceptions/scenarios where it doesn’t apply, (and/or can be adequately covered by (or contained withthe “obstruction” law) and is obviously extremely rare.

Can anyone provide any details of circumstances on recent (or I suppose historic) instances where it has occurred in first class cricket (apparently one in 2021/22?) that might shed any further light explaining why it is needed? (when a simple call of “dead ball” covers the possibility of exploiting an otherwise loophole to score runs).

Is it linked to player/umpire safety or time wasting or something, that precludes just being wrapped up within the “obstruction” law? (as has previously happened with the former “handled the ball” dismissal which I hadn’t realised that had gone until I checked - one to remember for future quiz questions!)
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
greg said:
… other than “because the laws say so”?

A bit of a random question that I have been musing about - what is the origin/rationale for the “hit the ball twice mode of dismissal (and has anyone considered changing it?).

It seems to me on the face of it something that is totally unneeded, especially given its (arguable) subjectivity and range of exceptions/scenarios where it doesn’t apply, (and/or can be adequately covered by (or contained withthe “obstruction” law) and is obviously extremely rare.

Can anyone provide any details of circumstances on recent (or I suppose historic) instances where it has occurred in first class cricket (apparently one in 2021/22?) that might shed any further light explaining why it is needed? (when a simple call of “dead ball” covers the possibility of exploiting an otherwise loophole to score runs).

Is it linked to player/umpire safety or time wasting or something, that precludes just being wrapped up within the “obstruction” law? (as has previously happened with the former “handled the ball” dismissal which I hadn’t realised that had gone until I checked - one to remember for future quiz questions!)
Click to expand...

Hit the ball twice - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Explains it pretty well.
 
G

greg

International Debutant
Coronis said:

Hit the ball twice - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Explains it pretty well.
Click to expand...
Thank you - how did i not think to look at wikipedia? D'oh!

I must say, very interesting as to the history - although also doesn't really disavow me of my opinion expressed above that the specific need for it under the current laws is questionable! Not so sure it would be included if the laws were being written from scratch today... Although i suppose maybe (outside of deliberate attempts to murder fielders!) the view is that its retention in favour of incorporating into the obstruction law is just seen as belt and braces for player safety (most obviously when attempting to take a catch).
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
'Hit twice' doesn't really have to be a dismissal, it could be dead ball, or runs discounted from the batting side like the one short rule, etc. But I think if there wasn't any law against hitting the ball twice to score, then batting is open to being completely different. Batters could deliberately play defensive 'controlling' shots into the ground and then aim to actually hit the thing with their second shot.

Think about how attacking footballers have controlling touches for example, and how completely different the shape and pace of football would be if they weren't allowed to do that.
 
G

greg

International Debutant
Howe_zat said:
'Hit twice' doesn't really have to be a dismissal, it could be dead ball, or runs discounted from the batting side like the one short rule, etc. But I think if there wasn't any law against hitting the ball twice to score, then batting is open to being completely different. Batters could deliberately play defensive 'controlling' shots into the ground and then aim to actually hit the thing with their second shot.

Think about how attacking footballers have controlling touches for example, and how completely different the shape and pace of football would be if they weren't allowed to do that.
Click to expand...
The point wasn’t to question the need to cover off a batter being able to hit the ball twice - just why it was a designated mode of dismissal. The issue with using it to score runs is easily dealt with by ruling any instance of it occurring with a call of dead ball.
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
Howe_zat said:
The forward defensive followed by running your hundred becomes the standard approach. Kenya rise to the top of the ICC rankings as the sport becomes mostly about how much distance you can run in a session.
Click to expand...
Actually no - fielding becomes mainly about how quickly you can pick up every ball that doesn't take a wicket and throw it over the boundary before they can run too many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top