You're the umpire

[marc71178]

The clip can be found at:

Click here then go to Giggles

 

[MrPerko]

..... meanwhile, the crowd is getting restless after waiting 10 hours for the umpires to decide who the hell has won.

 

[royGilchrist]

Thanks for the clarifications Marc, makes a bit more sense.

 

[The Argonaut]

But has the original question been answered? If we accept Eyes as adjudicator then she said that Paid and MArc were close to the right answer. Does that then mean the full answer hasn't yet been achieved.

It seems to be a chicken and the egg scenario. I think the run and the wicket must be allowed but what then is the result, a win by 0 wickets or 1 run. The law doesn't differentiate between the first and last wickets to fall therefore the result must be the same regardless.

How does that sound Eyes? Put us out of our misery or tell us whether Paid or Marc was right in the first place.

 

[Umpire Money]

Paid and Marc were completely right.
None of this half right crap

If it is a wide then one run gets added.Its still out thou. Even if he his the wicket while playing his shot.
If the keeper does jump and takes the ball before the ball passes the wicket its a no ball.

Just because it could win the game for them it doesnt change the rules.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Kittens give Paid Gas!

I might just become an umpire I'll put you out of a job, Umpire Money.

How about this one.

As the bowler bowls the ball, his arm brushes the stumps dislodging the bails. The non-striker is out of his crease, with bails off and the stumps still up.

The batsman hits the ball to mid-wicket and sets off for a run. The fielder at square leg picks it up on the run and pings. It clips the still upright stumps, not knocking them down, while the striker is out of the crease.

The ball then travels on through the backing up fielder at mid-off. The batsmen go for a second run. Mid-off throws it to the bowler, now behind the messed-up stumps, who knocks the stumps out of the ground. Non-striker is out of his crease.

The batsmen not noticing that the bowler has it, run again. The bowler picks up a stump from the ground and hits it multiple times with the ball!

How many runs?

 

[The Argonaut]

Great scenario.

Two runs.

 

[royGilchrist]

I would say that as soon as the umpire sees that the bails had been brushed off by the bowler (or by wind), he would declare it 'dead ball', and it will be replayed. No runs, no outs.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
I would say that as soon as the umpire sees that the bails had been brushed off by the bowler (or by wind), he would declare it 'dead ball', and it will be replayed. No runs, no outs.

The ball would not be called "Dead Ball" if the stumps are hit by the bowlers follow through!

it couldn't be blown off by the wind in as it says the bowler did it!

 

[royGilchrist]

Hmm, ok some clarification needed...when did the ump see the bail come off...

if the ump saw the bail come off, he should given it out right there (no run, and non striker runout), if the bowling side appealed ofcourse...

 

[marc71178]

I think it's 2 runs because once the bails are off a stump has to be removed by a fielder holding a ball?

 

[Eyes_Only]

Originally posted by The Argonaut
But has the original question been answered? If we accept Eyes as adjudicator then she said that Paid and MArc were close to the right answer. Does that then mean the full answer hasn't yet been achieved.

It seems to be a chicken and the egg scenario. I think the run and the wicket must be allowed but what then is the result, a win by 0 wickets or 1 run. The law doesn't differentiate between the first and last wickets to fall therefore the result must be the same regardless.

How does that sound Eyes? Put us out of our misery or tell us whether Paid or Marc was right in the first place.

Gentlemen...

Go to the MCC Site and read the Laws for yourself...that is the only way you'll learn!! :P

I have training next week and will make a point to ask Simon Taufel for the right answer!

[Edited on 16/10/2002 by Eyes_Only]

 

[royGilchrist]

So whats the answer to ur question Paid?

 

[Paid The Umpire]

I'm not sure,

That was why I asked

But i assume that it would be 3 runs.

0 Runs: No, not mankad. As the bowler dislodged the bails in his action.

1 Run: No, stumps had been broken.

2 Runs: No, I thought stumps had to be held up and pounded.

3 Runs: See previous.

:baddevil:

 

[marc71178]

In the scenario, they only run 2 before the bowler picks up the stump.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

My mistake!