Cricket Q&A

[Perm]

TBH, I'd be dropping my game if I didn't post woeful use of the naughty. I'm well-known for it, especially by your esteemed countryman formerly of the ultra-curly hair.

YUS! I was described

 

[Neil Pickup]

Is it a cricketing law that batsmen should wear helmets?

It is an ECB directive that all players aged 17 and under must wear helmets whilst either batting or wicketkeeping standing up to the stumps, unless the club or school has explicit, written permission from the parent/guardian.

Some clubs insist on helmets for youth players no matter what - personally I would not have a problem allowing anyone to bat without a lid so long as they (and their parents) were comfortable with it, and I was spared the prospect of legal action...

 

[SJS]

Should we reactivate the "Cricket guru" thread or the "SJS format thread" again ?

I would love someone to do that. Somehow this place is not the same without those 'game' threads.
I promise to stick around with you as long as it takes to get some of the old regulars to come back.

 

[Smudge]

Ouch - I heard that.....

Eric Hollies bowled Bradman in his last test innings. Over or around the wicket?

Here is a confirmation.

I quote :

At the Oval Test, Hollies' first ball, bowling round the wicket, was a leg-break, which the batsman played defensively. His second one was a googly. It drew Bradman forward but not far enough to smother the spin. The ball broke in and removed the off bail. Bradman was out! The moment stunned the crowd as well as Bradman.

The Don returned to the pavilion amidst thunderous applause. Hollies who had plotted his fall turned to Jack Young and lamented, "Best ball I I've bowled all season and they are clapping him!" That evening he rang up Dollery and told him triumphantly. "He never saw it, Tom".

A cartoon in The Melbourne Herald next day depicted Hollies as "the prickly fellow who put the zero in Don"! The "Hollies Duck" is one of cricket's amazing noughts. It almost never came about, for, when the invitation to play in the Test arrived, Hollies told Leslie Deakins that he would rather play for Warwickshire since the rubber had already been decided, and playing the Test would mean his missing out on two county games. The county management prevailed upon their homeboy to play in the Test.

Its interesting. Many news stories say round whereas AskSteven on cricinfo stated over.

Its a little confusing.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/233194.html

Ive not seen the old newreel footage for a long time but you certainly could be right about the spliced footage. IIRC it showed Bradman walking to the wicket, Hollies bowling and then cut to Bradman getting bowled.

It could certainly have been unrelated deliveries spliced together that (as the one shown is round) has led to the misunderstanding that Hollies was round the wicket when he bowled Bradman.

Has anyone checked the ball-by-ball commentary on Cricinfo?

 

[GIMH]

Great idea for a thread, don't quite understand Perm's problem (unless his post was in jest!!!)

 

[Stefano]

Could you please answer to these questions:

1) No-ball called. The batsman hits the ball... The two batsmen go to the opposite end, but the ball is caught by a fielder. Because of the no-ball, there is no out. But, does the run count or not?

2) Sometimes batsmen take off their helmet. For example: when they face a fast bowler, they wear the helmet, but when a spinner comes, they take it away. Where do they put it?

 

[marc71178]

1 - the run counts.

2 - I guess that they send it back to the dressing room.

 

[Goughy]

Also for question 2, some grounds used to have little hatches in the outfield where stuff could be stored below ground level. Headingley was one of these where a helmet or fielders shin guards could be kept close to the action for easy access.

I would guess they have become less fashionable as the ball could take a wicked hop if it hit the lip of the covered area.

 

[SJS]

Ok here is one I just thought up

1. The batsmen are taking a run and both are in the middle of the pitch when the stumps are broken by a throw. Its a photofinish between the two batsmen in that they are exactly in the same line and its imp[ossible to say they who is closer to which set of stumps. Both of them are reluctant to walk. Who wil be declared run out ?

And a variation.

2. The non striker comes rushing down the track but the striker has just moved a couple of yards. The non-striker crosses the striker but the latter shows no inclination to run since the ball is being thrown towards the bowlers end.

The non striker turns round, goes past the striker once again but is still short of the bowlers end when he is run out.

The fielding side wants the striker to be declared out since they had crossed once and the batsmen think it is the non striker since he is running towards the stump that was broken.

Who is right?

 

[Goughy]

Ok here is one I just thought up

1. The batsmen are taking a run and both are in the middle of the pitch when the stumps are broken by a throw. Its a photofinish between the two batsmen in that they are exactly in the same line and its imp[ossible to say they who is closer to which set of stumps. Both of them are reluctant to walk. Who wil be declared run out ?

I suppose it would depend whether it was the 1st run or not.

If it was the 1st run, I would rule that they had not crossed (as they are level) and the batsman that started at the end the stumps had been broken at would be out.

Purely my interpretation.

 

[SJS]

I suppose it would depend whether it was the 1st run or not.

If it was the 1st run, I would rule that they had not crossed (as they are level) and the batsman that started at the end the stumps had been broken at would be out.

Purely my interpretation.

I would tend to agree. but would you consider they had crossed if it was the second run ?

 

[Goughy]

I would tend to agree. but would you consider they had crossed if it was the second run ?

If it was the 2nd run then the batsman that started at the opposite end to where the runout happened would be out as they had crossed once (putting him last at that end) but have not re-crossed.

 

[SJS]

If it was the 2nd run then the batsman that started at the opposite end to where the runout happened would be out as they had crossed once (putting him last at that end) but have not re-crossed.

Of course. But if they were 'level' as in the first case the same would apply ie they are presumed not crossed.

What do you think of the second hypothesis?

 

[Goughy]

What do you think of the second hypothesis?

The non-striker is out

 

[Perm]

Well TBF this thread has turned out a lot better than I thought it would have. I retract my previous statement.

 

[Fiery]

Well TBF this thread has turned out a lot better than I thought it would have. I retract my previous statement.

 

[Sir Redman]

a) If one bail is down and the other is in place it is enough to run the batsman out normally as long as this second bail is dislodged.

b) If both bails are down but one or more stumps are standing, it is required to pull a stump out of the ground. Alternatively one can try to put a bail back and follow the normal method but that takes longer

c) If all stumps are lying on the ground, the fielder is required to put at least one of them back and follow b) above.

This reminds me of a situation my team were in a couple of seasons ago. It was a disgusting day, freezing cold and there was a howling gale blowing across the ground. As a result, the umpires took the bails off the stumps because they were getting blown off all the time. They didn't have any heavy ones, so we were playing without bails at all - just the stumps.

After a couple of overs, we had a run-out chance...our fielder picked the ball up and threw the stumps down (I can't remember if he knocked them out of the ground, but I think he did) with the batsman miles short of his ground. He knew this, and was walking off. The umpire, however, called him back, ruling that we had to be holding the ball in our hand while pulling the stump out of the ground, as you would if you'd knocked the bails of yourself.

Anyway, should he have been out? Common sense dictates yes (the batsman was happy to go), and I would have thought the law would have too. Could also cause chaos if he'd been bowled of stumped instead of run-out.

 

[Dick Rockett]

He should have been, yeah. If it's obvious to everyone that the bails would have come off.

 

[marc71178]

I'm guessing that the umpires weren't neutral?

 

[headhunter]

I know now that a 4 day match is not a test match(thank you prince) but is it just called a 4 day match or what?