Cricket Q&A

[roobarb]

1. Out Obstructing the field
Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the opposing side by word or action. It shall be regarded as obstruction if either batsman wilfully, and without the consent of the fielding side, strikes the ball with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, after the ball has touched a fielder. See 4 below.

3. Obstructing a ball from being caught
The striker is out should wilful obstruction or distraction by either batsman prevent a catch being made.
This shall apply even though the striker causes the obstruction in lawfully guarding his wicket under the provisions of Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once

Yes. Good point and I hadn't thought of this. Basically under this law the fielding side has the choice of which batsman is out. Good law as it stops a cr*p batsman obstructing the field to stop a good batsman being caught. Well done, I missed that.

 

[Richard]

"Crap" isn't filtered. But the filter is there for a reason.

 

[Fiery]

"Crap" isn't filtered. But the filter is there for a reason.

Maybe he is too polite to spell it out?

 

[roobarb]

I wasn't trying to avoid the $**XXXXX****@@ filter but point taken

 

[Stefano]

There are some questions I would like to ask you:

- The batsman hits the ball, which bounces on the boundary rope. Is this 4 or 6?

- In one day, a minimum of 90 overs should be bowled. However, not always is this target achieved. Sometimes there is a good reason: bad light, rain. But in some other cases, there is no apparent reason: just slow bowling. For example: during day 1 of the current test match between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh only 84 overs were bowled (there was a change of innings, but only 2 overs should have been lost). My questions are:

1) Why were not all overs bowled?
2) Is it possible to bowl some extra overs the following day?

 

[Pup Clarke]

The answer to your first question is a 6. All overs are sometimes not bowled because of a slow over rate which means how many overs are bowled in one hour of play. 12 overs an hour is considered slow. It is possible to make up time and bowl more overs by starting the match 30 minutes earlier. Hope I answered everything you asked for.

 

[andyc]

The answer to your first question is a 6. All overs are sometimes not bowled because of a slow over rate which means how many overs are bowled in one hour of play. 12 overs an hour is considered slow. It is possible to make up time and bowl more overs by starting the match 30 minutes earlier. Hope I answered everything you asked for.

Just to expand on that, slow over rates could be caused by the fielding side constantly changing the field, bowlers with long run ups, or maybe because the fielding side was deliberately trying to slow down the batting team.

 

[atisha_ro]

should there be a minimum over rate?
during the Bangladesh vs. India test the commentators were talking about how there were 26 overs in an hour back in good old times.
a minimum 15 overs per hour would make sense to me.

 

[Stefano]

Thanks for your reply. However there is still some doubt. Slow bowling: this should not be tolerated. If 90 overs should be bowled in one day, that target should be reached, unless there are some reasons.

 

[Richard]

*sigh* Indeed it should. There are penalties for slow over-rates, there is a stipulation that 15-per-hour is the minumum (hardly ever achieved), it's 100% not acceptible (people routinely used to bowl 20 overs an hour 40 or 50 years ago), but almost invariably people are too light on those responsible.

The amount of time between deliveries - most of the time - is unutterably ridiculous IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Just to expand on that, slow over rates could be caused by the fielding side constantly changing the field, bowlers with long run ups, or maybe because the fielding side was deliberately trying to slow down the batting team.

The latter was a tactic well used by the Windies in the 80s on the very rare occasions they found themselves in a bit of strife. With 4 quicks they sometimes bowled very few overs in a day. Their attack was intimidating enough let alone without there being any pressure on them to at least get close to 90 overs in a day.
Would be interesting to have seen them try to meet a quota of 90 in a day. Wonder if it would have reduced their effectiveness?

 

[JBMAC]

The latter was a tactic well used by the Windies in the 80s on the very rare occasions they found themselves in a bit of strife. With 4 quicks they sometimes bowled very few overs in a day. Their attack was intimidating enough let alone without there being any pressure on them to at least get close to 90 overs in a day.
Would be interesting to have seen them try to meet a quota of 90 in a day. Wonder if it would have reduced their effectiveness?

No, I don't believe that would have happened as you need to remember the Windies sides of the 80's were superbly and more importantly astutely led.

 

[Burgey]

True. It's just another example of the changing ways of the game I guess.

 

[atisha_ro]

what about a 25-run penalty if the minimum 15 overs aren't reached?
i know a team can find excuses, even fake injuries and so on, but something has to be done.

 

[Richard]

I'm certainly in favour of some sort of very immediately effective punishment. In a Test, of course, it could only be runs - added as penalty-runs to the opponent's tally. I'd do it on a session-by-session basis - if you haven't managed 15-an-hour, add 25 runs or something. And it needs to be that much - just 5, say, wouldn't be that much of a handicap, it'd be the same as if someone bowled a wide that went to the boundary.

In the domestic game where league tables are in operation, points-deduction would work best IMO. And not the sort of nonsensical, flimsy, 1\4-of-a-point nonsense we currently have in England. Something good and proper that makes a real effect on your place in the table.

 

[Stefano]

I have some doubt about this situation. I hope you can help me.

What happens if one ball is both a no-ball and a wide? How many runs are awarded to the batting team? 2? How many balls are added to the over?

 

[Richard]

Sadly, once something is a no-ball, it cannot be a wide.

Me, I'd like a situation where a delivery could be both... I don't see why you should get away with 1 error because you've made another.

So once a no-ball is called, there can be no wide. However, if the ball goes for what would normally have been byes this becomes no-balls - say it goes and the batsmen run 2, this is then 3 no-balls instead of 2 byes.