• 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.

*Official* Fifth Test (The Oval, London) 27-31 July

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I think because the off bail was broken early, it's no longer "live" - only the leg bail counts and it definitely didn't fall until after Smith was already in. But I wasn't aware you could distinguish between the two bails like so?

I don't envy the umpires in this case to be fair. This is one of the most technically complex decisions I've seen.
I don't think that counts as a bail being broken. The laws state the bail has to be removed completely for it to be off. Since it wasn't, the other side of the bail coming off would count as the moment where the bail was off. As long as Bairstow had the ball in his band when the other side of the bail was off (e.g completely broken), it would have counted. But the other side of the bail didn't come off in time.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Right, I see what he meant now. Although for the one bail to be off (i.e. the one Bairstow knocked off), it would need to be completely dislodged I think


29.2.2 The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal.
But if the disturbance started before the ball was in the gloves, but it completes after the ball is in the gloves, then does it still count as being disturbed by the keeper without the ball? I genuinely have no idea
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
But if the disturbance started before the ball was in the gloves, but it completes after the ball is in the gloves, then does it still count as being disturbed by the keeper without the ball? I genuinely have no idea
Per my reading of the laws, disturbance is not constitute removal so it doesn't matter. It is purely the moment when it is completely displaced.

The Laws said:
The Laws said:
The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
Right, I see what he meant now. Although for the one bail to be off (i.e. the one Bairstow knocked off), it would need to be completely dislodged I think


29.2.2 The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal.
Yeah if I am understanding it correctly - the fact that it wasn't totally dislodged meant Bairstow's contact didn't matter (guessing because it is the same law as a bail coming out of the groove for everything else) but he just wasn't sure that Bairstow broke it before Smith grounded it.

Sensational dive from Smith
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
Bineal: "You can see why Ricky Ponting was so upset about the Gary Pratt run out. I can't imagine Jimmy Anderson having effected that kind of fielding if he'd been out there instead of the substitute, or even Mark Wood after a day of fielding and a few spells under their belts. "
yeah ponting's right. eng have been cheating by "playing" clouderson in tests for years now
 

G. S. Kohli

International Vice-Captain
Second new ball has been taken
30 more i guess

283
235

Sometime you beaten in 1st innings but win 5 day games, happen many times. 😄
 

Top