Budding or current Cricket Umpires - a question for you...

The_President

A real scenario that happened today in the SA v Windies Test match currently being played, and this question was posed by Robin Jackman, but wasnt answered...

Batsman calls for a run, the non-striker runs to the other end , however, after almost reaching the crease he slips and his bat comes out of his hand and hits the wicket (and takes off one bail) at the same time that the ball is coming in from the fielder ( and in this instance justs misses the wicket ,whilst the batsman was just short of his crease,batless).
The question is.... if the ball from the fielder had hit the stump that contained the bail that had been removed by the bat...would he have been out?

Shag

Yes

cashncarry

Not sure about that with reading the laws of the game.A good one I'm stumped

eldavide

I really don't know, but because the wicket is broken, wouldn't the fielding team have to do that thing where they grab a stump and the ball at the same time for a run out? Or how about an appeal for obstructing the field?

bobmunro

If a bail falls off the stumps for any reason other than the ball direct from the bowler hitting it or the strikers bat hitting it, while the ball is still in play, and a later incident such as a run out attempt requires the wicket to be broken, then the other bail can be removed (if it has not yet fallen off), or a stump can be struck out of the ground or pulled up (as long as the person pulling the stump up has the ball in his hand).

So the answer is yes if the stump was knocked out of the ground but no if it wasn't.

CHG

Holder always says once the wicket is broken everything that happens after is irrelevant as the ball is dead. Great scenario.

charltonkeston

I would say he was out as the ball wouldnt be dead and the batting side have broken the wicket and the batsmen would have crossed.

Ben18

I believe it would be not out

The batsman can only be deemed to be obstructing the field if intentional. If it is an accident then he would be given not out

'Ask the umpire' is a great series of articles if you can find them online. Pose all sorts of great questions

bobmunro

charltonkeston said:

I would say he was out as the ball wouldnt be dead and the batting side have broken the wicket and the batsmen would have crossed.

There are three ways a wicket can be broken - bail off, stump knocked out of the ground or stump pulled out of the ground by a fielder with the ball in his grasp.

In this scenario because the ball hits the stump without a bail and is not in the grasp of a fielder the only way the wicket can be broken is if the stump is knocked out of the ground. If the ball just glanced the stump without knocking it out of the ground then he is not out.

lolwray

my answer

regardless of how the bail or bails came to be seperated from the stumps the ball is in play (not an instance where the bowler has broken same in delivery stride or wind has blown bails off during run up /broken by keeper by accident)

if the wicket is already broken (it is considered broken if 1 bail is missing) then the only way a run out could be effected would be to grab a stump

would be out obstructing the field if bat broke wicket deliberately

a similar situation could occur if batter broke wicket whilst turning for a 2nd or 3rd run

no specific law to cover this ...calling dead ball would be a get out

i havent got the laws infront of me but it would be covered by the law that governs the calling of dead ball

a good bar question

The_President

lolwray said:

my answer

regardless of how the bail or bails came to be seperated from the stumps the ball is in play (not an instance where the bowler has broken same in delivery stride or wind has blown bails off during run up /broken by keeper by accident)

if the wicket is already broken (it is considered broken if 1 bail is missing) then the only way a run out could be effected would be to grab a stump

would be out obstructing the field if bat broke wicket deliberately

a similar situation could occur if batter broke wicket whilst turning for a 2nd or 3rd run

no specific law to cover this ...calling dead ball would be a get out

i havent got the laws infront of me but it would be covered by the law that governs the calling of dead ball

a good bar question

This, for me.

bobmunro

lolwray said:

if the wicket is already broken (it is considered broken if 1 bail is missing) then the only way a run out could be effected would be to grab a stump

Not true - a run out can also be effected if the ball striking the stump (without the bail) lifts it out of the ground. In the OP scenario it would have been a direct hit and would have been out if the impact actually lifted the stump out of the ground. If the stump remained in the ground after the impact then not out. The stump can only be pulled out of the ground by a fielder if he has the ball in his grasp and this isn't the case here.

Ben18

I played a couple of years ago in a midweek 20/20 game. We needed 2 to win off the last ball, and I was batting at the non-strikers end.

My partner had a big swing but duffed it and the ball trickled into the offside just a few feet from him, so we both set off for the game tying run. The fielder came in from point and threw the stumps down at the non-strikers end, removing both bails, but my teammate was just about in. The ball ended up about 4 or 5 yards from the stumps, so I ran back for the second knowing I would be run-out, but couldn't not do it.

The bowler picked the ball up, stood next to the stumps and did a gentle underarm throw to hit the stumps. Knowing the rules, I ran through comfortably, and he couldn't understand why I was celebrating, and all his teammates were shaking their heads

I still can't believe that this 20/21 year old decent standard cricketer didn't know the rule about removing the stump with the ball.

Pedro45

There is an issue of whether the bat breaking the wicket constitutes obstructing the field; I didn't see this WI Vs SA incident, but if it was "willful", then he should have been out whether the throw hit the stumps or not. If not "willful", then I think the dead ball get out would have come into play.

charltonkeston

bobmunro said:

charltonkeston said:

I would say he was out as the ball wouldnt be dead and the batting side have broken the wicket and the batsmen would have crossed.

There are three ways a wicket can be broken - bail off, stump knocked out of the ground or stump pulled out of the ground by a fielder with the ball in his grasp.

In this scenario because the ball hits the stump without a bail and is not in the grasp of a fielder the only way the wicket can be broken is if the stump is knocked out of the ground. If the ball just glanced the stump without knocking it out of the ground then he is not out.

"ball is coming in from the fielder ( and in this instance justs misses the wicket "

But the fielding side have not broken the wicket.

To be honest I dont know the laws of the game inside out and you do sound like you know bit more than i do and i've been drinking so, I'm prepared to stand corrected.

bobmunro

charltonkeston said:

bobmunro said:

charltonkeston said:

I would say he was out as the ball wouldnt be dead and the batting side have broken the wicket and the batsmen would have crossed.

There are three ways a wicket can be broken - bail off, stump knocked out of the ground or stump pulled out of the ground by a fielder with the ball in his grasp.

In this scenario because the ball hits the stump without a bail and is not in the grasp of a fielder the only way the wicket can be broken is if the stump is knocked out of the ground. If the ball just glanced the stump without knocking it out of the ground then he is not out.

"ball is coming in from the fielder ( and in this instance justs misses the wicket "

But the fielding side have not broken the wicket.

To be honest I dont know the laws of the game inside out and you do sound like you know bit more than i do and i've been drinking so, I'm prepared to stand corrected.

The question was what would have happened if it had hit the bailless stump.

The_President

Pedro45 said:

There is an issue of whether the bat breaking the wicket constitutes obstructing the field; I didn't see this WI Vs SA incident, but if it was "willful", then he should have been out whether the throw hit the stumps or not. If not "willful", then I think the dead ball get out would have come into play.

It wasnt willful - it simply fell out of his grasp when he slipped and with the forward momentum fell onto leg stump.

The_President

It must have been one of those days as there was another interesting moment in the Aus v India game today...

Smith hit Sharma in the air back towards the bowler in his follow-through - who then stuck out a hand and deflected it straight onto the Umpires arm and *almost* straight back to Sharma still without bouncing. Would he have been out if Sharma had caught the ball?.

happyvalley

The_President said:

It must have been one of those days as there was another interesting moment in the Aus v India game today...

Smith hit Sharma in the air back towards the bowler in his follow-through - who then stuck out a hand and deflected it straight onto the Umpires arm and *almost* straight back to Sharma still without bouncing. Would he have been out if Sharma had caught the ball?.

Yes the umpire is classed as part of the field of play.