"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message news:MPG.1cf3b83fb8dd4495989912@news-server...> In article <1116261224.458450.276820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,> Suri says...>
Scenario :> >
A clean clear run-out chance. Batsman is only half way down. Fielder> > gets the ball, dislodges the bail to catch it in his hand, and places> > it back.> >
Is the batsman run out?>
Provided the hand holding the ball dislodges the bail then he's gone.
Hand or arm of hand holding the ball. A point which often seems to be lost on television commentators.
Now one for you. Batsman goes down the track to a spin bowler and attempts to hit him over mid-wicket. He gets a thick inside edge, which succeeds only in striking the short-leg fieldsman flush on the helmet, from where it rebounds onto the stumps with the batsman out of his ground.
You are the square leg umpire. What is your decision?
"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message news:3esljvF4qvq2U2@individual.net...>
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message> news:MPG.1cf3b83fb8dd4495989912@news-server...>> In article <1116261224.458450.276820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,>> Suri says...>>
Scenario :>> >
A clean clear run-out chance. Batsman is only half way down. Fielder>> > gets the ball, dislodges the bail to catch it in his hand, and places>> > it back.>> >
Is the batsman run out?>>
Provided the hand holding the ball dislodges the bail then he's gone.>
Hand or arm of hand holding the ball. A point which often seems to be > lost> on television commentators.>
Now one for you. Batsman goes down the track to a spin bowler and > attempts> to hit him over mid-wicket. He gets a thick inside edge, which succeeds> only in striking the short-leg fieldsman flush on the helmet, from where > it> rebounds onto the stumps with the batsman out of his ground.>
You are the square leg umpire. What is your decision?>
"Will S" <mutantaxe54@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Hn9ie.426$q33.8145@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message> news:3esljvF4qvq2U2@individual.net...> >
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message> > news:MPG.1cf3b83fb8dd4495989912@news-server...> >> In article <1116261224.458450.276820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,> >> Suri says...> >>
Scenario :> >> >
A clean clear run-out chance. Batsman is only half way down. Fielder> >> > gets the ball, dislodges the bail to catch it in his hand, and places> >> > it back.> >> >
Is the batsman run out?> >>
Provided the hand holding the ball dislodges the bail then he's gone.> >
Hand or arm of hand holding the ball. A point which often seems to be> > lost> > on television commentators.> >
Now one for you. Batsman goes down the track to a spin bowler and> > attempts> > to hit him over mid-wicket. He gets a thick inside edge, which succeeds> > only in striking the short-leg fieldsman flush on the helmet, from where> > it> > rebounds onto the stumps with the batsman out of his ground.> >
You are the square leg umpire. What is your decision?> >
Andrew> >
run out
You have just failed your exam, and will not be promoted to the Elite Panel to replace the retiring David Shepherd.
Andrew Dunford wrote:> "RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message> news:MPG.1cf3b83fb8dd4495989912@news-server...>
In article <1116261224.458450.276820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,>>Suri says...>>
Scenario :>>>
A clean clear run-out chance. Batsman is only half way down. Fielder>>>gets the ball, dislodges the bail to catch it in his hand, and places>>>it back.>>>
Is the batsman run out?>>
Provided the hand holding the ball dislodges the bail then he's gone.>
Hand or arm of hand holding the ball. A point which often seems to be lost> on television commentators.>
Now one for you. Batsman goes down the track to a spin bowler and attempts> to hit him over mid-wicket. He gets a thick inside edge, which succeeds> only in striking the short-leg fieldsman flush on the helmet, from where it> rebounds onto the stumps with the batsman out of his ground.>
You are the square leg umpire. What is your decision?>
Andrew>
Not out - because if you can't be caught of a helmet, you can't be run out off a helmet?
-- Champions!!!!
The Records...
Most Points - 95 Most Wins - 29 Least Goals conceded - 15 Most Cleansheets - 25 Most Consecutive Away Wins - 9 Longest time without conceding a goal - 1024 minutes
"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message news:3esljvF4qvq2U2@individual.net...>
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message> news:MPG.1cf3b83fb8dd4495989912@news-server...>> In article <1116261224.458450.276820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,>> Suri says...>>
Scenario :>> >
A clean clear run-out chance. Batsman is only half way down. Fielder>> > gets the ball, dislodges the bail to catch it in his hand, and places>> > it back.>> >
Is the batsman run out?>>
Provided the hand holding the ball dislodges the bail then he's gone.>
Hand or arm of hand holding the ball. A point which often seems to be > lost> on television commentators.
And fielders (or possibly me if I'm missing something). Why don't players use their elbows and uppers to bring down the stumps? ie the ball is 50cm wide of the stumps, catch it with the elbow pointing towards the stumps and you've only got to move the elbow 10 cm. Wouldn't that be quicker than moving the ball the full 50cm? Or if the throw is a metre wide, just drive upper/arm shoulder into the stumps.
It is out. You only have to dislodge the bails. I've seen Pollock(I think) do what you describe in the past. And the run out stood.
"Suri" <suriiyer@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1116291019.583224.275850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> sorry guys for the confusion. Looks like it did not make it fully> clear>
The fielder dislodges the bail and cathes the bail in his other hand> and put it back on top of the stumps.>
My understanding was that the bails had to fall on the ground? The rule> book says has to be "dislodged" but unwritten law(according to me) is> that the bails to get fully dislodged must fall on the ground.>
"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message news:3esljvF4qvq2U2@individual.net...>
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message> news:MPG.1cf3b83fb8dd4495989912@news-server...>> In article <1116261224.458450.276820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,>> Suri says...>>
Scenario :>> >
A clean clear run-out chance. Batsman is only half way down. Fielder>> > gets the ball, dislodges the bail to catch it in his hand, and places>> > it back.>> >
Is the batsman run out?>>
Provided the hand holding the ball dislodges the bail then he's gone.>
Hand or arm of hand holding the ball. A point which often seems to be > lost> on television commentators.>
Now one for you. Batsman goes down the track to a spin bowler and > attempts> to hit him over mid-wicket. He gets a thick inside edge, which succeeds> only in striking the short-leg fieldsman flush on the helmet, from where > it> rebounds onto the stumps with the batsman out of his ground.>
You are the square leg umpire. What is your decision?>
In article <3esljvF4qvq2U2@individual.net>, Andrew Dunford says...
Now one for you. Batsman goes down the track to a spin bowler and attempts> to hit him over mid-wicket. He gets a thick inside edge, which succeeds> only in striking the short-leg fieldsman flush on the helmet, from where it> rebounds onto the stumps with the batsman out of his ground.>
You are the square leg umpire. What is your decision?
I'd have to rule not out as it struck the helmet. Ball is still in play and the batsmen can still be run out if the wicket is fairly put down before the batsmen can return to his crease.
In article <1116291019.583224.275850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Suri says...
My understanding was that the bails had to fall on the ground? The rule> book says has to be "dislodged" but unwritten law(according to me) is> that the bails to get fully dislodged must fall on the ground.
Dislodged means that the bail has to have been completely removed from the top of the stumps, the bail doesn't have to subsequently hit the ground.
If the player legally removed the bail, caught it in his hand and replaced the bail and the batsmen had not made his ground when the bail had cleared the top of the stumps, he is out.
In article <1116292385.404496.65190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Straun says...
Out. Definately. While not having the rule book handy, consider the> amount of replays they show in order to adjudge a close runout.
That's one gripe I have with the resolution and the frame rate used to judge close runouts. It can be difficult to see exactly when both sides of the bail have cleared the stumps. If the ball is a direct hit on leg stump for instance, it will clear the stump before the spigot that is resting on middle stump is clear.
On Tue, 17 May 2005 07:48:17 GMT, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote:
In article <1116292385.404496.65190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >Straun says...>
Out. Definately. While not having the rule book handy, consider the>> amount of replays they show in order to adjudge a close runout.>
That's one gripe I have with the resolution and the frame rate used>to judge close runouts. It can be difficult to see exactly when both>sides of the bail have cleared the stumps. If the ball is a direct hit>on leg stump for instance, it will clear the stump before the spigot >that is resting on middle stump is clear.>
Cheers,>Rod.
This is where technology has created a distinction that would never worry us if we left technology out of it. Without slow motion replay, we umpires in the real world give the out if we hear the ball strike the stumps before we see the batsman grounded over the crease. We don't worry about how much longer after the ball strikes the stumps the bails really are fully and permanently removed from the tops of the stumps. You can rest assured that nobody ever worried about that from the dawn of cricket until the advent of the slow-motion replay. (Of course we worried about it when there was a discernible real-time slowness in the removal of the bails for some reason, or if the bails were merely disturbed and not removed, but those were the exceptions, not the rule.)
This is the kind of thing that causes a few troglodytes like me to question the advocation of technology as the cure-all for umpiring mistakes. Yes, umpires make mistakes and have a threshold below which they can't really give the correct decision. Yes, technological means can reduce this threshold. But in the end the technology has a threshold, too. Eventually we have to accept that there is a point of closeness beyond which we will not be able to make a definite determination.
So the question is not really whether we shall use technology or just go with the decisions of the human umpires, with its implied implication that one is perfect and the other is not. The question really is, what threshold of uncertainty are we willing to accept? If we don't simply accept the decisions of unaided human beings, are the costs of lowering the threshold by technological means really worth the benefits? This presents the possibility of useful and productive discussion. To simply assume that human umpires are idiots and technology is better in all cases really does not.
In article <knkk81hmi7nocumknl8hji79agicicb01s@4ax.com>, Ron Knight says...
This is where technology has created a distinction that would never> worry us if we left technology out of it. Without slow motion replay,> we umpires in the real world give the out if we hear the ball strike> the stumps before we see the batsman grounded over the crease. We> don't worry about how much longer after the ball strikes the stumps> the bails really are fully and permanently removed from the tops of> the stumps. You can rest assured that nobody ever worried about that> from the dawn of cricket until the advent of the slow-motion replay.> (Of course we worried about it when there was a discernible real-time> slowness in the removal of the bails for some reason, or if the bails> were merely disturbed and not removed, but those were the exceptions,> not the rule.)
Agreed. However, it's unlikely an umpire would be brave enough to give a batsmen out when the decision is that close that upon scrutiny of a recording of the event, it came down to 'was the 2nd spigot out of the groove in the frame that shows the batsmen just short of the line, or not'? Unless, as you say, the bails were innitially just 'disturbed'.
But my initial gripe still stands, when decisions are left in the hands of the 3rd umpire, he should be armed with a better quality view of the event than he is at the moment.
So the question is not really whether we shall use technology or just> go with the decisions of the human umpires, with its implied> implication that one is perfect and the other is not. The question> really is, what threshold of uncertainty are we willing to accept? If> we don't simply accept the decisions of unaided human beings, are the> costs of lowering the threshold by technological means really worth> the benefits? This presents the possibility of useful and productive> discussion. To simply assume that human umpires are idiots and> technology is better in all cases really does not.
Difficult question. You have to ask yourself, should we have a 3rd umpire when it's only available at the highest level of the game, or does the highest level of the game require that we should minimise incorrect decisions where possible? Video replays are still adjudicated on by an umpire, so technology at the moment is just a tool to reach a decision made by a human. I'm absolutely not prepared to accept a tool such as hawkeye to take over the role of the guy behind the stumps. Ultimately I still want decisions to be made by an umpire and not technology.
"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1116291562.451002.50780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>
Colin Lord wrote:>> "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message>> news:3esljvF4qvq2U2@individual.net...>> >
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message>> > news:MPG.1cf3b83fb8dd4495989912@news-server...>> >> In article> <1116261224.458450.276820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,>> >> Suri says...>>
And fielders (or possibly me if I'm missing something). Why don't> players>> use their elbows and uppers to bring down the stumps? ie the ball is> 50cm>> wide of the stumps, catch it with the elbow pointing towards the> stumps and>> you've only got to move the elbow 10 cm. Wouldn't that be quicker> than>> moving the ball the full 50cm? Or if the throw is a metre wide, just> drive>> upper/arm shoulder into the stumps.>
Almost certainly in some cases, but I think it's a habit associated> with the idea of "doing the work of the ball". Moreover, in some cases,> you might cause yourself an injury (eg catching the ball above the> bails from a crouch and bringing your elbow down onto the top of the> stumps).
Of course that would be stupid, but to the side of the stumps it makes sense, and given all of the fielding drills they do I'm surprised no one has taken up doing it.
In article <TWuie.6562$E7.1089@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Colin Lord says...
Almost certainly in some cases, but I think it's a habit associated> > with the idea of "doing the work of the ball". Moreover, in some cases,> > you might cause yourself an injury (eg catching the ball above the> > bails from a crouch and bringing your elbow down onto the top of the> > stumps).>
Of course that would be stupid, but to the side of the stumps it makes > sense, and given all of the fielding drills they do I'm surprised no one has > taken up doing it.
Indeed. The action of a keeper to take a ball away from the stumps and bring the ball towards them takes valuable time. If the ball had been gloved in both hands and the wicket broken with a flinch of an elbow, does this constitute legally putting down the wicket? It's certainly a major time saver provided your elbow doesn't pass between the stumps.
"Phil." <felton@princeton.edu> wrote in message news:1116377338.412684.270330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>
RodP wrote:> > In article <TWuie.6562$E7.1089@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,> > Colin Lord says...> >
Almost certainly in some cases, but I think it's a habit> associated> > > > with the idea of "doing the work of the ball". Moreover, in some> cases,> > > > you might cause yourself an injury (eg catching the ball above> the> > > > bails from a crouch and bringing your elbow down onto the top of> the> > > > stumps).> > >
Of course that would be stupid, but to the side of the stumps it> makes> > > sense, and given all of the fielding drills they do I'm surprised> no one has> > > taken up doing it.> >
Indeed. The action of a keeper to take a ball away from the stumps> > and bring the ball towards them takes valuable time. If the ball> > had been gloved in both hands and the wicket broken with a flinch> > of an elbow, does this constitute legally putting down the wicket?> > It's certainly a major time saver provided your elbow doesn't pass> > between the stumps. >
"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message news:3evk5eF4smjgU1@individual.net...>
"Phil." <felton@princeton.edu> wrote in message> news:1116377338.412684.270330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>>
RodP wrote:>> > In article <TWuie.6562$E7.1089@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,>> > Colin Lord says...>> >
Almost certainly in some cases, but I think it's a habit>> associated>> > > > with the idea of "doing the work of the ball". Moreover, in some>> cases,>> > > > you might cause yourself an injury (eg catching the ball above>> the>> > > > bails from a crouch and bringing your elbow down onto the top of>> the>> > > > stumps).>> > >
Of course that would be stupid, but to the side of the stumps it>> makes>> > > sense, and given all of the fielding drills they do I'm surprised>> no one has>> > > taken up doing it.>> >
Indeed. The action of a keeper to take a ball away from the stumps>> > and bring the ball towards them takes valuable time. If the ball>> > had been gloved in both hands and the wicket broken with a flinch>> > of an elbow, does this constitute legally putting down the wicket?>> > It's certainly a major time saver provided your elbow doesn't pass>> > between the stumps. >>
On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:30:13 +1200, "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote:
"Phil." <felton@princeton.edu> wrote in message>news:1116377338.412684.270330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>>
RodP wrote [I think, if I have snipped correctly]:
Indeed. The action of a keeper to take a ball away from the stumps>> > and bring the ball towards them takes valuable time. If the ball>> > had been gloved in both hands and the wicket broken with a flinch>> > of an elbow, does this constitute legally putting down the wicket?>> > It's certainly a major time saver provided your elbow doesn't pass>> > between the stumps. >>
Yes that's out.>
Don't I have to first appeal?>
Andrew
Well, no, Andrew, as I suspect you already know. Of course, as Colin points out, the batsman does have to be out of his ground, and perhaps several other things have to be true as well before the batsman is out. But on your basic question--don't I have to first appeal before a batsman is out?--the answer is no, you don't.
You do have to appeal if you want the umpire to make and enforce a decision as to whether or not he is out, but he is already out or not out before you appeal, and he might well choose to acknowledge that he is out by walking, without any appeal or decision by the umpire.
Laws 30-39 describe the 10 different ways of being out (other than Retired, Out, which is the 11th), and the word "appeal" doesn't appear in any of them. They all just say the batsman is out if such-and-such happens.
The umpire is on the field to resolve disputes, and if there is a dispute as to whether or not a batsman is out, the matter is referred by appeal to the umpire. In that case it is possible that the umpire will take a batsman who is out and make him not out by error or benefit of the doubt. A batsman who is not out may also be given out by the umpire in error. But these are errors (except for the benefit of the doubt, when that is in accordance with the Laws); whether the batsman is out or not out before the appeal and the umpire's ruling is already an existing fact. The umpire's ruling is a determination of fact and not the fact itself.
If there is no dispute as to the fact that the batsman is out, there is no need to refer the matter to the umpire by appeal unless the batsman refuses to walk. He is likely to justify this refusal as "letting the umpire do his job", but the umpire has no job that he should be called on to do if the players are all agreed on the facts. His job is to resolve honest disputes, not to determine who is lying.
