***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[luckyeddie]

I don't remember the run out thing either, but if he wants to take guard that far out of his crease then there's nothing wrong in running him out.

The impression given is that it was more an afterthought than anything - the ball's being thrown back through the field to the bowler. I'm damned sure that if it had happened the way it had been described, Geraint Jones would have thrown the ball at the stumps (he had a couple of attempts in the second test) - and not just tossed it to first slip then on to Hoggard or whoever, in which case the ball would have been dead.

Law 23 (Dead ball)
1. Ball is dead
(a) The ball becomes dead when
(i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler.


Law 38 (Run out)
1. Out Run out
(a) Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if at any time while the ball is in play
(i) he is out of his ground
and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side.

 

[Isolator]

Oh, maybe I have the source of the confusion here - was McGrath at the striker's end or the non-striker's end? I thought he was facing (hence the reason he was out of his crease in the first place, to minimize the LBW chances as he was advised by MacGill).

If he was at the non-striker's end, that WOULD be a different story, but I didn't think that was the case...

No, McGarth was facing.

Again, I have to say that I don't remember this incident at all...

 

[Slow Love™]

I think Eddie is comparing the two situations, i.e. you don't run someone out backing up without giving them the warning and thus shouldn't run McGrath out without something similar.

Ah... OK.

I would have thought there'd have to be some protection for the fielding side against somebody batting so far out of their crease, though (otherwise, theoretically, a team could really take LBWs out of the realms of possibility). That's why some keepers will come up to the stumps to the medium fast guys occasionally - and they'll sure as hell knock over the stumps if the batsman doesn't make their ground after the delivery.

 

[Slow Love™]

Right, I think I get it now. So it looks like the point of contention would be if the ball was dead.

 

[Isolator]

Law 23 (Dead ball)
1. Ball is dead
(a) The ball becomes dead when
(i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler.

"Finally settled" is quite a vague term. What does "finally" mean? I think it's left to the umpire's discretion.

Law 38 (Run out)
1. Out Run out
(a) Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if at any time while the ball is in play
(i) he is out of his ground
and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side.

Don't see how this doesn't apply in this situation.

Now let's assume that this thing did happen. I'd say it would be pretty reasonable for Jones to toss Hoggard the ball if it would have made the run-out easier.

EDIT: And I repeat, I fully support Mankading.

 

[luckyeddie]

You're speaking of Mankading? If so, then yes, I would, absolutely. If it's in the laws, it's the batsman's business to know it, and if he doesn't too bad. I cannot see how anyone can label a perfectly legal, valid mode of dismissal as immoral.

Strangely enough, I have not used the word 'immoral' once yet you keep maintaining that I have. I was responding to someone who said something along the lines of the fact that he didn't care how moral it was, and you agreed.

The point I was making, which you clearly are ignoring, is that the way the incident is described, the ball was thrown to Hoggard as part of the normal method of returning it to the bowler - and under those circumstances, the ball is quite clearly and categorically dead, end of story.

 

[PY]

The impression given is that it was more an afterthought than anything - the ball's being thrown back through the field to the bowler. I'm damned sure that if it had happened the way it had been described, Geraint Jones would have thrown the ball at the stumps (he had a couple of attempts in the second test) - and not just tossed it to first slip then on to Hoggard or whoever, in which case the ball would have been dead.

I think I saw an incident and it went straight from Jones to Hoggard and Jones was thinking of it straight away as soon as the ball went through.

I'm basing all my thoughts on what I remember seeing, whether it was that incident in particular though I'm not certain.

 

[Isolator]

The point I was making, which you clearly are ignoring, is that the way the incident is described, the ball was thrown to Hoggard as part of the normal method of returning it to the bowler - and under those circumstances, the ball is quite clearly and categorically dead, end of story.

The way it's described in the article I quoted, you mean? Well:

a) I never saw the incident happen, and from the uncertain responses here, I'm predisposed to think it didn't happen at all.

b) Even if it did happen, and it is described accurately in that article, I can't see anything in that passage that indicates whether Jones threw it as a matter of routine or whether it was with the intent to run McG out. If anything, I'd say that it kinda sounds more like "intent to run-out" rather than "routine".

 

[luckyeddie]

I think I saw an incident and it went straight from Jones to Hoggard and Jones was thinking of it straight away as soon as the ball went through.

I'm basing all my thoughts on what I remember seeing, whether it was that incident in particular though I'm not certain.

Under those circumstances, provided it's not an afterthought, then there is obviously a debate as to whether the ball is alive or not - exactly the same as a stumping. I daresay now it's in the public domain, there will be any number of people trying to make a huge issue of the whole thing, looking at recordings from all the camera angles.

The impression I got when I first heard about it was that it was just as the ball was being returned to the bowler, someone 'noticed'. If that's not the case, then obviously there's a case for running him out.

I'm just glad it didn't happen - a bit like Paulo DiCanio for West Ham a few years ago deliberately handling when the goalie was injured.

 

[tooextracool]

Easy to say that with hindsight

its not hindsight, its just bloody obvious. when would you bowl simon jones? with the new ball which hes struggled to control all his career or when the ball gets old and starts to reverse?

 

[Isolator]

Strangely enough, I have not used the word 'immoral' once yet you keep maintaining that I have. I was responding to someone who said something along the lines of the fact that he didn't care how moral it was, and you agreed.

You're right, I think I misread your first post.

However, this...:

As far as run-outs are concerned, they're fair game - but not if it's the non-striker backing up - at least without a warning.

...this certainly sounds like a comment on the (im)morality of Mankading.

 

[PY]

I'm just glad it didn't happen - a bit like Paulo DiCanio for West Ham a few years ago deliberately handling when the goalie was injured.

One of the best moments I've seen in football and uplifted Mr Di Canio into the realms of legend in my book.

Gave me goosebumps when I saw that.

 

[marc71178]

I think Eddie is comparing the two situations, i.e. you don't run someone out backing up without giving them the warning and thus shouldn't run McGrath out without something similar.

I disagree about that though - it's fair game IMO - he chooses to stand there.

 

[luckyeddie]

You're right, I think I misread your first post.

However, this...:


...this certainly sounds like a comment on the (im)morality of Mankading.

Not a problem - as far as the running out of the non-striker (I have too much respect for the English language to use THAT word ) is concerned, if there's deliberate skullduggery regarding trying to steal a yard, I'd still expect a warning to be given (unless it's totally blatant).

I was really referring to today's incident (can we call it "Mpofugate?) - I sort-of found that a bit too much, even if it was 'only' Zimbabwe and the circumstances sound hysterically funny, but I'd already had a playful dig at the sheepsha... sorry, Kiwis, about that.

 

[Isolator]

I disagree about that though - it's fair game IMO - he chooses to stand there.

No, I think there should be a warning.

Something like " Hey Glen - you're out!" .

 

[greg]

I think I saw an incident and it went straight from Jones to Hoggard and Jones was thinking of it straight away as soon as the ball went through.

I'm basing all my thoughts on what I remember seeing, whether it was that incident in particular though I'm not certain.

I think two separate balls are being mixed up. On the first ball of the over Harmison fired the ball down the leg side and Jones took a shy at the stumps in the process of rolling over after taking the ball. There seemed to be some thought that Brett Lee was trying to run a bye to the keeper. I don't recall anything happening on the next ball - presumably the cameras weren't watching. However the contrast with the previous ball incident mentioned would suggest that Jones was not trying to run out McGrath in this case and is more consistent with the "ball being returned to the bowler" thesis. After all England had only two fielders in front of the bat.

 

[PY]

Hmmm, maybe you are right. I did mention I wasn't sure about it but I definitely remember Jones throwing the ball straight to Hoggard after a ball had been bowled and thought that was it.

If I'm wrong, I apologise.

 

[maxpower]

just managed to see the final day highlights for the 3rd test, and I envy all you ppl who get to see it live. I think Billy bowden did a fine job of umpiring, and Jones wicket of Clark was one of the best in recent times, Clark was a deer in the head light. Ritchie called it reverse swing, I saw the shinny side inside, I thought shinny side out and ball coming in was reverse swing. Eng fans would've liked Freddie bowling the last over perhaps, from flauting his man bobies to doing reverse flips he's come a long way, definetly the best all rounder now. For all who will see the 4th and 5th test live, I hate you all

 

[PY]

Where you from mate?

Sorry for my lack of knowledge, you've obviously been here ages but I have a poor memory.

 

[honestbharani]

Who would you appoint then as the two best umpires for the final Test - given that Bowden's off home, and Taufel's ineligible...

Aleem Dar... and?

Rudi Koertzen.