Shouldn't this rule be changed?

[honestbharani]

That run out that was not given in the Australia Vs Bangladesh game was ridiculous. I know the law has to be obeyed, but isn't it time that the laws were changed? I once saw Mark Waugh being bowled by Raju, but the bails weren't dislodged. So he stayed in. Surely, batsmen have enough advantages as it is. I just think that the wicket should be considered broken if the ball has made contact with any of the stumps. That should be that. None of this "bails completely dislodged" or "stumps taken out of the ground" complex nonsense.

 

[andyc]

No way. The bails should definitely have to come off. For one, it saves confusion.

 

[oz_fan]

I think it should. If you hit the stump through either bowling or a run out you have achieved your aim and I think that its good enough to be classed out but like andyc said it is likely to cause confusion and could be hard to tell even with replays.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's pretty hard to definitively tell if the stump has been hit in certain cases though. What if the ball just brushes it? The bails being knocked off is a clear thing that is easy to judge in 99% of cases, so there's no trouble.

However, the run out today really should ahve been given. The rule isn't that the bails have to be a certain distance in the air before the batsman is out, they just have to be dislodged, and when the stump is knocked back several inches the bail is obviously dislodged, even if you can't see the bail on the camera clearly because of the colouring.

There's been some terrible third umpiring in this series actually, does anyone know if it has been the same guy every time? There's the shocking mixup with the catch on Aftab Ahmed where Ponting got fined, the Hayden run out in the second test that was too close to call, and then the Cullen run out today.

 

[pasag]

No way, once you start changing rules everything goes to hell. Anyway the incident that happened tonight, the bails were off i think, its just that the other pitch was pretty white and you couldnt see them clearly.

 

[GotSpin]

No. Bails should come off.

 

[alternative]

I reckon the bails have to be dislodged, like if there is no pressure in bails being dislodged or if it just smacks the wickets and doesn't dislodge da bails, then its simply NOT OUT!!

But from time to time, bowlers and fielders are unlucky with such stuff..
Ie: i am not sure but i think this was in the Natwest Series of 2005, where i think it was Plunkett who actually missed out on a hatrick, as hi hit the top of the middle stump but bails didn't dislodge.. Its just unlucky..

Ok i dunno if this makes sense or not, i hope it does.. if not.. ah well..

 

[andyc]

What exactly happened tonight with the run out?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That was Tremlett. Against Bangladesh in his debut match, his hat-trick ball hit the stumps but the bails stayed on.

Actually, that whole English summer the bails seemed hard to knock off. There was another incident in the NWS, and in the tests there was a ball from Flintoff I think that hit the outside of leg stump pretty hard and didn't knock off the bails.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There was another case very recently in the SA v NZ 1st test. Franklin (I think) was bowling to Ntini and hit the off stump with pretty much the meat of the ball & the bails stayed on. It was given its own "things that shouldn't happen" slot on a sports round-up programme up here.

It was certainly the hardest I've seen the stumps hit without the bails dislodging. It seems to be happening more frequently or, at least, one hears it being reported more often nowadays.

 

[Dasa]

That was Tremlett. Against Bangladesh in his debut match, his hat-trick ball hit the stumps but the bails stayed on.

Actually, that whole English summer the bails seemed hard to knock off. There was another incident in the NWS, and in the tests there was a ball from Flintoff I think that hit the outside of leg stump pretty hard and didn't knock off the bails.

Giles hit the leg-stump in the Champions Trophy bowling to Martyn but the bails didn't come off.

Not as bad as the time Mushtaq Ahmed bowled one that went in the gap between off and middle stump (against South Africa I think). The stumps moved a little bit, bit the bails stayed on.

..and regarding HB's point, I think a clear distinction has to be made and all the umpires should agree to use the same interpretation. Otherwise you see some umpires giving it not out of the bails haven't completely fallen off while others give the same thing out.

 

[pasag]

The case tonight wasnt that the bails hadnt come off, but at the split second between the batsman being over the line they were not off yet. In the first frame he is not yet in the crease, Cullen had put his hand through the stumps but you cant see if the bails had come off. The next shot shows the bails in the air but the batsman home.

I think it was very poor umpiring and even worse video umpiring. Just becuase you cant see the bail sailing in the air doesnt mean they are still ontop of the stumps.

 

[atichon]

Another rule I would like to change concerning run outs :
I never understood why you could add to the score AND be out within the same ball. To me either you're safe when the ball is dead, then you can add the runs to the score, either you ran carelessly for a second or third run and you lose the benefit of every run scored.

Particularly in ODIs, this would add pressure to the side chasing when the RRR is high with a lot of remaining wickets.

 

[alternative]

That was Tremlett. Against Bangladesh in his debut match, his hat-trick ball hit the stumps but the bails stayed on.

Thanx for that, i forgot his name..

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think it was very poor umpiring and even worse video umpiring. Just becuase you cant see the bail sailing in the air doesnt mean they are still ontop of the stumps.

Exactly. It's one thing to give benefit of the doubt to the batsman when there is real doubt, but if the stumps are clearly broken and the fielder's hand is right through them, obviously the bails have been dislodged. Just because you can't see them in the air due to the background doesn't mean it should be given not out.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Another rule I would like to change concerning run outs :
I never understood why you could add to the score AND be out within the same ball. To me either you're safe when the ball is dead, then you can add the runs to the score, either you ran carelessly for a second or third run and you lose the benefit of every run scored.

Particularly in ODIs, this would add pressure to the side chasing when the RRR is high with a lot of remaining wickets.

Not really. If both batsman have completed a length of the pitch, that's a run. It's up to them to decide if they want to try for more. Besides, you can be stumped off a wide, which is also scoring a run and being dismissed at the same time.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's another example of people wanting to make cricket at the highest level a completely different game to that played at grass roots.

Time was we all played the same game - just that test cricketers played it better.

 

[cpr]

hmm, i was going to suggest putting some sort of mild explosive in the stumps that would detonate on impact, making it pretty obvious if they were out or not, but then i reckon the number of stumpings would be seriously reduced.

So i propose velcro stumps. If the ball sticks, your out. (fly paper would work just as effectively)

 

[Dick Rockett]

hmm, i was going to suggest putting some sort of mild explosive in the stumps that would detonate on impact, making it pretty obvious if they were out or not, but then i reckon the number of stumpings would be seriously reduced.

So i propose velcro stumps. If the ball sticks, your out. (fly paper would work just as effectively)

 

[adharcric]