Can you take a hat-trick over two matches?

[Jono]

I actually had a similar question. But its not really got to do with int'l cricket, but synthetic club cricket

If you bowl a ball and it hits the half-way mark of the pitch which seperates the synthetic mats, its apparently a 'dead ball'. Now I was bowling my regular leggies in the synthetic nets a month or so ago during cricket training and I was on a hat-trick. My last two balls had resulted in wickets. My next ball pitched half way and had it been a full synthetic pitch, would have hit that spot half-way resulting in it being a dead ball. Would I then be on a hat-trick on my next ball (all assuming this was in a live game and not a net session)?

 

[Jamee999]

No, I don't get disappointed when someone's out for 99. I can absolutely gurantee you that if you offered a batsman 99 before most innings, he'd take it. 99 is usually a good score on all but the absolute flattest of wickets (Antigua etc.)
I am indeed a churle and a curmadgeon and make no apologies for it. I only rarely find cricket "exciting" - I find it hugely interesting, gripping, heartbeat-raising, etc. rather. As such, I prefer to point-out to people that there's nothing to get excited about at a bowler bowling a few 90mph deliveries or getting 3 wickets in 3 balls.

You're really, really, really weird.

So cricket doesn't excite you but you have more than 19,000 posts on a cricket forum?

 

[Richard]

No, it doesn't excite me.
It doesn't need to.
There are other positive emotions in life - loads of them - besides excitement.

 

[marc71178]

I actually had a similar question. But its not really got to do with int'l cricket, but synthetic club cricket

If you bowl a ball and it hits the half-way mark of the pitch which seperates the synthetic mats, its apparently a 'dead ball'. Now I was bowling my regular leggies in the synthetic nets a month or so ago during cricket training and I was on a hat-trick. My last two balls had resulted in wickets. My next ball pitched half way and had it been a full synthetic pitch, would have hit that spot half-way resulting in it being a dead ball. Would I then be on a hat-trick on my next ball (all assuming this was in a live game and not a net session)?

I think you would be yes - the ball hasn't counted in the game so in effect hasn't happened.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I find it hugely interesting, gripping, heartbeat-raising.

ex·cite
tr.v. ex·cit·ed, ex·cit·ing, ex·cites

1. To stir to activity.
2. To call forth (a reaction or emotion, for example); elicit: odd noises that excited our curiosity.
3. To arouse strong feeling in: speakers who know how to excite a crowd. See Synonyms at provoke.
4. Physiology. To produce increased activity or response in (an organ, tissue, or part); stimulate.

Sounds like you're excited to me...

 

[Smudge]

Thanks to the people who contributed positively in this thread.

"I just love hat tricks. They're so pretty, don't you think?"

Is that better?

 

[Richard]

ex·cite
tr.v. ex·cit·ed, ex·cit·ing, ex·cites

1. To stir to activity.
2. To call forth (a reaction or emotion, for example); elicit: odd noises that excited our curiosity.
3. To arouse strong feeling in: speakers who know how to excite a crowd. See Synonyms at provoke.
4. Physiology. To produce increased activity or response in (an organ, tissue, or part); stimulate.

Sounds like you're excited to me...

If so, let it be that way.
I rarely get out of my seat - even after Edgbaston, all I did was sat smiling, when I bet virtually everyone else of the English-cricket-fandom was leaping about and screaming.
That's how I define my broadly-speaking lack of excitability.

 

[Swervy]

If so, let it be that way.
I rarely get out of my seat - even after Edgbaston, all I did was sat smiling, when I bet virtually everyone else of the English-cricket-fandom was leaping about and screaming.
That's how I define my broadly-speaking lack of excitability.

which takes us right back to:
'Richard, you have no soul. I suggest you take up another sport.'

 

[Son Of Coco]

I ask again.
Is the term "hat-trick" defined in the rules?
As far as I'm aware - no, it's not. Please show me if it is.
Hat-tricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers (or those who seek to build people up in the same way as showponies and attention-seekers seek to build-up themselves) - they aren't really important. As far as the overall effect is concerned, there's essentially no difference between taking 2 wickets in 2 balls, then bowling a dot, then taking another.
(Yes, I'm aware that if you need 4 wickets in the final over it gives you another ball to get the last one, but really - how often does this happen?)

hahahahaha....ha. You're brilliant! In a rainman type of way, but brilliant none-the-less. 'Hattricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers'...that's the quote of the year as far as I'm concerned. You've swayed me anyway, next time (if there is one) I take 2 wickets in 2 balls I'm bowling a wide.

 

[andyc]

(Yes, I'm aware that if you need 4 wickets in the final over it gives you another ball to get the last one, but really - how often does this happen?)

Can't say I've ever heard of that... can anyone explain it?

 

[marc71178]

hahahahaha....ha. You're brilliant! In a rainman type of way, but brilliant none-the-less. 'Hattricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers'...that's the quote of the year as far as I'm concerned. You've swayed me anyway, next time (if there is one) I take 2 wickets in 2 balls I'm bowling a wide.

What if the keeper then effects a stumping - 3 wickets in 2 balls...

 

[benchmark00]

You can't get stumped on a no ball.

EDIT: mis read, thought it said no ball... carry on.

 

[andyc]

What if the keeper then effects a stumping - 3 wickets in 2 balls...

Then, as I found out a few weeks ago, it counts as a run out rather than a stumping, so the bowler doesn't get the wicket. But, still 3 wickets in 2 balls. Therefore, you could get a whole team out without them actually facing a ball. Well, I think so... I know it's that way for a no ball, and I think it would be for a wide too, but I'm not positive.

 

[benchmark00]

Then, as I found out a few weeks ago, it counts as a run out rather than a stumping, so the bowler doesn't get the wicket. But, still 3 wickets in 2 balls. Therefore, you could get a whole team out without them actually facing a ball. Well, I think so... I know it's that way for a no ball, and I think it would be for a wide too, but I'm not positive.

It's a stumping.

It happened to Jayasuriya in 2000 against India.

*ST Jayasuriya st Dahiya b Ganguly 189

 

[andyc]

It's a stumping.

It happened to Jayasuriya in 2000 against India.

*ST Jayasuriya st Dahiya b Ganguly 189

Well there you go. No surprises that it was Ganguly who bowled the wide.

 

[Richard]

hahahahaha....ha. You're brilliant! In a rainman type of way, but brilliant none-the-less. 'Hattricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers'...that's the quote of the year as far as I'm concerned.

You clearly misunderstood (whether deliberately or not I don't know).
I clearly said "Hat-tricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers (or those who seek to build people up in the same way as showponies and attention-seekers seek to build-up themselves)". IF you missed the bracketed bit, you'd get a totally different message.

You've swayed me anyway, next time (if there is one) I take 2 wickets in 2 balls I'm bowling a wide.

Which will leave you on a hat-trick next ball.
Given that a wide can't take a wicket except with a stumping.
And I presume you've not often had the wicketkeeper standing-up to you?

 

[Richard]

which takes us right back to:
'Richard, you have no soul. I suggest you take up another sport.'

Nope, to have no soul you'd need Dementors, which to my knowledge are an invention of JKR.

 

[Richard]

Can't say I've ever heard of that... can anyone explain it?

Heard of what?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Nope, to have no soul you'd need Dementors, which to my knowledge are an invention of JKR.

 

[Swervy]

Which will leave you on a hat-trick next ball.
Given that a wide can't take a wicket.

i dont think that would count as a hattrick