You Are The Umpire

[Burgey]

Sounds like a Lou Reed song.

 

[Spikey]

john Holder sounds like a horrible umpire tbh.

 

[TNT]

Here is an interesting one, given the same circumstances where the non striker interferes with the bowler trying to take a catch but another fielder takes the catch can both batsmen be given out, one caught and one for interfering with the fielder.

 

[Bahnz]

It has happened in a Test match even. I can't remember which one but I'm pretty sure I've seen it. Its not out.

It happened to John Wright once, though I can't remember when or where.

 

[Burgey]

My understanding is if there's an appeal for interfering with the field then the striker is out, but I'm not sure.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

My understanding is if there's an appeal for interfering with the field then the striker is out, but I'm not sure.

Either batsman can be given out obstructing the field but if the action prevents a catch being taken, whichever batsman commits the offence, the striker is out.

Here is an interesting one, given the same circumstances where the non striker interferes with the bowler trying to take a catch but another fielder takes the catch can both batsmen be given out, one caught and one for interfering with the fielder.

You can't have two dismissals on one play.

In this instance the catch takes precedence.

If a batsman is 'out twice' on the same ball (say he edged iton to the stumps and is then caught or the ball hits his pads and would have been adjudged LBW but the ball deflects on to, and breaks, the wicket) bowled will always take precendence followed by caught

I'll ask one:

A legal delivery passes the batsman. The bowlers end umpire calls wide.

The ball is missed by the keeper and runs towards the boundary.

After a couple of seconds the batsmen decide that a run is possible and set off.

In doing so the striker's foot slips and breaks the wicket.

On appeal - what is your decision?

 

[wiff]

Its not because the bail could land back into the grooves but because the keeper has interfered with the wickets, the line has been crossed.

What happens if a seagull swallows a bail?

 

[wiff]

Either batsman can be given out obstructing the field but if the action prevents a catch being taken, whichever batsman commits the offence, the striker is out.



A legal delivery passes the batsman. The bowlers end umpire calls wide.

The ball is missed by the keeper and runs towards the boundary.

After a couple of seconds the batsmen decide that a run is possible and set off.

In doing so the striker's foot slips and breaks the wicket.

A famous similar case that everyone should be aware of

 

[cnerd123]

Should be out hitwicket yea? + the wide

 

[cnerd123]

What happens if a seagull swallows a bail?

He is out obstructing the field ofc.

 

[Dan]

Enjoyed have a go at those. Favourite is number 1 here

Who the **** would do that? My answer was 'give him out for being such a colossal bellend'

1. Dead ball and out. He's left the field with all of his gear, so AFAIC he's retired himself. May not strictly be the letter of the law, but given how much of a colossal bellend he's being, he damn sight deserves it.

2. Out. Legitimate catch, however much of a mess he made of it.

3. No action.

dan to comment

In this case Holder is being the kind of umpire I absolutely ****ing despise -- the one so caught up in his own self-righteousness and desire to look like he is all-knowing that he takes the game way too seriously and fails to use any common sense whatsoever.

If the 'keeper catches the bail well behind the stumps and off to the side, it's pretty bloody obvious that it isn't landing back in the groove. Unless I feel there is intent from the wicketkeeper to prevent the bail from falling back into the groove, and it looks like it actually may well have done so, I'm giving it out.

As for the duck mask, it depends on the level. In a low grade park game, I'd identify the batsman, voice my concerns regarding safety, probably call him an idiot and let him proceed. Any higher level, and as far as I'm concerned he's bringing the game into disrepute.

As for withdrawing the appeal, I'd argue it's against the preamble to the laws of the game and refuse the captain's request.

FTR I don't umpire at a particularly high level :P

 

[wiff]

Should be out hitwicket yea? + the wide

No, the act of running is quite separate from any action involving the delivery.

 

[cnerd123]

Can't you be out hitwicket as long as the ball is in play and you haven't actually left your creasE?

 

[Riggins]

Nah it needs to be in the course of playing the delivery (whether that be hitting, leaving or avoiding the ball), I think.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Surely we must have done this before. Just in case we have not...

All taken from the Guardian and the long running strip - You Are The Umpire You are the Umpire | Sport | The Guardian
They also have the football equivalent You are the Ref | Football | The Guardian

Number 1 can be easily negated by doing what Clive Lloyd did in the 1979 World Cup Final when he deliberately dropped a sitter from Geoff Boycott.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Should be out hitwicket yea? + the wide

No, the act of running is quite separate from any action involving the delivery.

Can't you be out hitwicket as long as the ball is in play and you haven't actually left your creasE?

Nah it needs to be in the course of playing the delivery (whether that be hitting, leaving or avoiding the ball), I think.

First, yes, the wide would count.

Regarding the hit wicket situation one of two conditions need to be fulfilled:

To be out hit wicket the batsman's person of equipment must break the stumps either

a) In the act of playing a shot

or

b) in immediately setting off for his first run.

In this situation the wicket was not broken in the act of playing the shot. It is for the umpires to decide how quickly the act of setting off for the first run occured but I would suggest a gap of a couple of seconds did not constitute an 'immediate' action so 'not out 'would be the correct call.