You're the umpire

[Eyes_Only]

This question had me reaching for the Law Books but as it stands at the moment, Paid and Marc are the only ones to come close to the correct answer!

Well done boys!

[Edited on 12/10/2002 by Eyes_Only]

 

[marc71178]

If the ball is taken by the keeper before it passes the stumps then it is a no-ball and the score would be 9-201. You CAN'T be stumped off a no-ball. The ump at square leg calls the no-ball.

I think it depends on the type of no ball doesn't it?

 

[Eyes_Only]

What do you mean the type?

 

[marc71178]

Well no balls for feet placement are different to those for taking the ball before it passes the stumps in that effect aren't they?

 

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by marc71178
Well no balls for feet placement are different to those for taking the ball before it passes the stumps in that effect aren't they?

And chucking

 

[Eyes_Only]

Originally posted by marc71178
Well no balls for feet placement are different to those for taking the ball before it passes the stumps in that effect aren't they?

No...the only types of No Balls are for feet placement and throwing.

 

[luckyeddie]

What about bowling with 3 men behind square on the leg side?

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by luckyeddie

Originally posted by marc71178
Well no balls for feet placement are different to those for taking the ball before it passes the stumps in that effect aren't they?

And chucking

I was hoping to avoid that scenario.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by luckyeddie
What about bowling with 3 men behind square on the leg side?

Or the over-enthusiastic keeper?

 

[royGilchrist]

I am totally confused what we are discussing anymore, if someone has a grip on whats goin on please explain....here is what I gathered till now....

We started off by trying to answer Marc original question about two teams and the deciding run being scored off a wide stumping. Some of us got that question right, as a wide run is credited to team B and hence team B wins.

The I had asked what if it was hit wicket instead of stumping, and I have no idea where we went from there.

Posted by age_master...

the ball cannot be taken from in front of the stumps unless the keeper is completeley in front of the stumps or the batsmen are running (or the rule goes something like that i think)

I still have no idea what this was in reference to?

Posted by Eyes_only...
According to Law 25.6, all runs that have been completed by the batsmen together with the wide balls will be scored as wides balls.

This law does not talk about the time when the wide is given, i.e. before or after an out, hence I have no idea how paid_hte_umpire said that it depends if a wide is given before or after the bails are dislodged. Is there another law which talks about that??

posted by Marc...
Not sure about that - if the batsman has completed his stroke, he can't be given hit wicket - if the ball has cleared the boundary, I'd say it's pretty certain he's finished his stroke!

I remember once Qasim Omar was the batsman and I think Tony Gray (of the west Indies) was bowling and the it was a nasty bouncer, which Qasim Omar hooked, and the top edge took it over the boundary for a six, but in the process QO hit the stumps, and he was given out. I dont think he was credited for six runs. I hope I got this correct.

Please someone explain where we are at now, and why all of a sudden we started discussing the over-enthusiastic keeper dislodging the bails before the ball crosses the stumps?

 

[marc71178]

We started off by trying to answer Marc original question about two teams and the deciding run being scored off a wide stumping. Some of us got that question right, as a wide run is credited to team B and hence team B wins.

The I had asked what if it was hit wicket instead of stumping, and I have no idea where we went from there.

Well we'd cleared up the stumped off a wide one, and I thought this would be one to try and work out the answer to!

 

[marc71178]

Posted by age_master...

the ball cannot be taken from in front of the stumps unless the keeper is completeley in front of the stumps or the batsmen are running (or the rule goes something like that i think)

I still have no idea what this was in reference to?

If the keeper takes the ball (which hasn't been hit by or made contact with the batsman) before it passes the stumps, it is a No Ball - I'm not sure what relevance it has (unless we were trying to work out if he can be stumped in that manner?), perhaps Age could clarify?

 

[marc71178]

Posted by Eyes_only...
According to Law 25.6, all runs that have been completed by the batsmen together with the wide balls will be scored as wides balls.

This law does not talk about the time when the wide is given, i.e. before or after an out, hence I have no idea how paid_hte_umpire said that it depends if a wide is given before or after the bails are dislodged. Is there another law which talks about that??

I think either Paid is off track or you've misunderstood him here - AFAIK the wide has occurred before the stumping (by definition as it has passed the stumps) so the wide counts first, hence the run being credited before the out.

 

[marc71178]

posted by Marc...
Not sure about that - if the batsman has completed his stroke, he can't be given hit wicket - if the ball has cleared the boundary, I'd say it's pretty certain he's finished his stroke!

I remember once Qasim Omar was the batsman and I think Tony Gray (of the west Indies) was bowling and the it was a nasty bouncer, which Qasim Omar hooked, and the top edge took it over the boundary for a six, but in the process QO hit the stumps, and he was given out. I dont think he was credited for six runs. I hope I got this correct.

In that case, he is hit wicket as in playing the shot he knocked his bails off. Had he top edged the hook, not hit the stumps, started on a run, then realised it was going for 6 and ran back into his crease, but hit his own stumps then (if you can follow that) then it is not out hit wicket.

Either way, he cannot be creditted with any runs as he was out playing the shot (In a way the same as if a man is caught, he gets no runs)

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by royGilchristPlease someone explain where we are at now, and why all of a sudden we started discussing the over-enthusiastic keeper dislodging the bails before the ball crosses the stumps?

Not sure where we are, but the over-enthusiastic keeper refers to the stumped of a no ball scenario.

 

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by marc71178

posted by Marc...
Not sure about that - if the batsman has completed his stroke, he can't be given hit wicket - if the ball has cleared the boundary, I'd say it's pretty certain he's finished his stroke!

I remember once Qasim Omar was the batsman and I think Tony Gray (of the west Indies) was bowling and the it was a nasty bouncer, which Qasim Omar hooked, and the top edge took it over the boundary for a six, but in the process QO hit the stumps, and he was given out. I dont think he was credited for six runs. I hope I got this correct.

In that case, he is hit wicket as in playing the shot he knocked his bails off. Had he top edged the hook, not hit the stumps, started on a run, then realised it was going for 6 and ran back into his crease, but hit his own stumps then (if you can follow that) then it is not out hit wicket.

Either way, he cannot be creditted with any runs as he was out playing the shot (In a way the same as if a man is caught, he gets no runs)

Remember Corky a few years ago? I think it was in his debut series against the West Indies. He flicked a ball through midwicket and ran 2. When he got back in, he picked the bail up and nonchalently placed it back on the stumps (he had dislodged it whilst playing the shot and no-one had noticed).

 

[marc71178]

Not Out as no-one appealed!

Still remember the Beefy Leg Over hit wicket.

 

[Eyes_Only]

When was that Marc??

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Originally posted by marc71178

Posted by Eyes_only...
According to Law 25.6, all runs that have been completed by the batsmen together with the wide balls will be scored as wides balls.

This law does not talk about the time when the wide is given, i.e. before or after an out, hence I have no idea how paid THE Umpire said that it depends if a wide is given before or after the bails are dislodged. Is there another law which talks about that??

I think either Paid is off track or you've misunderstood him here - AFAIK the wide has occurred before the stumping (by definition as it has passed the stumps) so the wide counts first, hence the run being credited before the out.

That is what I meant.:ticking:

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Eyes_Only
When was that Marc??

Think it was 91 against the Windies - he tried to hook it or something but over balanced and brushed the bails off with his thigh.

Had the funniest radio commentary ever in the summary as Jonathon Agnew said "he couldn't quite get his leg over" at which the late great Johnners burst in laughter and caused Agnew to laugh as well, meaning we had about half a minute of laughter!