Is this Out???

[Lippy64]

I have asked many people this question and have never got a definitive answer, can you please assist.



Is a batsmen out or not out if the following scenario happened. If out under which rule is he dismissed and how is it recorded in the scorebook.



A batsmen after blocking a ball and dropping his bat notices that the ball is spinning back towards the stumps. The batsmen places his hand on top of the bails preventing them from falling off when the ball hits the stumps. At no time does he touch the ball of interfere with a fieldsmen.



Is this out?

 

[NUFAN]

LOL, why would he touch the top of the bails and not try and stop the ball.

If I was umpiring I would give it out if the ball touches the stumps.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I cannot find an appropriate passage in the lawbook to affirm the method of dismissal, but I would give it out irrespective of the ball touching the stumps or not as the batsman is being an arsehole. Would go "obstructing the field" - wilfully obstructing the fielding side by his actions.

 

[Lippy64]

LOL, why would he touch the top of the bails and not try and stop the ball.

If I was umpiring I would give it out if the ball touches the stumps.

If he had gone to far forward and the ball is rolling on the ground towards the stumps and he couldnt reach down but had enough time to place his hand on top of the stumps preventing the bails from being removed how can he be out bowled as you mention?

 

[Lippy64]

I cannot find an appropriate passage in the lawbook to affirm the method of dismissal, but I would give it out irrespective of the ball touching the stumps or not as the batsman is being an arsehole. Would go "obstructing the field" - wilfully obstructing the fielding side by his actions.

When did the stumps become part of the fielding side. I do agree though with your arsehole quote. Would be funny to see though.

 

[andruid]

I cannot find an appropriate passage in the lawbook to affirm the method of dismissal, but I would give it out irrespective of the ball touching the stumps or not as the batsman is being an arsehole. Would go "obstructing the field" - wilfully obstructing the fielding side by his actions.

As it becomes impossible for the fielding side to dislodge the bails when the batsman is holding them to the bails he is obstructing the field.


My two cents...

 

[ozone]

Despite you're explanation, I still don't see this situation occuring ever in any form of cricket. However, if it did, I would give the batsman out obstructing the field.

 

[NUFAN]

If he had gone to far forward and the ball is rolling on the ground towards the stumps and he couldnt reach down but had enough time to place his hand on top of the stumps preventing the bails from being removed how can he be out bowled as you mention?

Didn't mention that he'd be out bowled. I would give it obstracting the field also.

 

[Lippy64]

Despite you're explanation, I still don't see this situation occuring ever in any form of cricket. However, if it did, I would give the batsman out obstructing the field.

Law 37 (Obstructing the field)
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

Cant see how this rule could be applied

 

[Son Of Coco]

I cannot find an appropriate passage in the lawbook to affirm the method of dismissal, but I would give it out irrespective of the ball touching the stumps or not as the batsman is being an arsehole. Would go "obstructing the field" - wilfully obstructing the fielding side by his actions.

Just put it down as "Out...Arsehole"

 

[NUFAN]

Law 37 (Obstructing the field)
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

Cant see how this rule could be applied

Your scenario would distract me if I was fielding..

 

[Lippy64]

Didn't mention that he'd be out bowled. I would give it obstracting the field also.

Law 30 (Bowled)
1. Out Bowled
(a) The striker is out Bowled if his wicket is put down by a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, even if it first touches his bat or person.

Cant be out bowled as the wicket is not put down

 

[NUFAN]

Law 30 (Bowled)
1. Out Bowled
(a) The striker is out Bowled if his wicket is put down by a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, even if it first touches his bat or person.

Cant be out bowled as the wicket is not put down

OK if it makes you happy to think I said bowled not once now, but twice..

 

[Lippy64]

OK if it makes you happy to think I said bowled not once now, but twice..

Not need to get angry Nuffy

 

[NUFAN]

Not need to get angry Nuffy

I'm happy bro.

 

[The Baconator]

Just put it down as "Out...Arsehole"

Imagine the joys some umpires would have if they could actually do that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Imagine the joys some umpires would have if they could actually do that.

Would halve Jacques Kallis's average.

 

[Engle]

Out obstructing the field.
Otherwise, next thing you know, the batsman could be pouring CrazyGlue on the bails

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Law 37 (Obstructing the field)
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

Cant see how this rule could be applied

He's obstructing the fielding side by preventing them from knocking off the bails. Can't see where the issue is here. Out, obstructing the field.

 

[Richard]

Just put it down as "Out...Arsehole"

Imagine the joys some umpires would have if they could actually do that.

Would halve Jacques Kallis's average.

Plenty far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more arseholeish cricketers than Jacques Henry. Matthew Hayden, for one.