• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

You Are The Umpire

Biryani Pillow

U19 Vice-Captain
1. Not out: The umpire can only give a batsman out on appeal. If there is no appeal, or if the appeal is withdrawn, the umpire cannot give the batsman out. If he batsman chooses to retire that is a different matter and would be allowed.

2. An interesting one but I would disagree with John Holder here. The fact that the bail 'might' land back in the groove is, for me, irrelevant. The wicket has been broken and if a fielder catches the bail it remains broken.

3. As long as I am able to identify the batsman as he takes the crease (to be assured he has not batted earlier) what he is wearing is matter for him. I might express a concern if I thought it might compromise his personal safety but that is all. If it were a League game I would also note it in my post match report in case the league Executive wished to raise it with the Club. One team which I tend to se at least 3 times a season contains identical twins. Luckily one bats left handed, the other right but it is an interesting question in that situation if an incident happened when you needed to know which is which,
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Enjoyed have a go at those. Favourite is number 1 here



Who the **** would do that? My answer was 'give him out for being such a colossal bellend'
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
1. Not out: The umpire can only give a batsman out on appeal. If there is no appeal, or if the appeal is withdrawn, the umpire cannot give the batsman out. If he batsman chooses to retire that is a different matter and would be allowed.

2. An interesting one but I would disagree with John Holder here. The fact that the bail 'might' land back in the groove is, for me, irrelevant. The wicket has been broken and if a fielder catches the bail it remains broken.

3. As long as I am able to identify the batsman as he takes the crease (to be assured he has not batted earlier) what he is wearing is matter for him. I might express a concern if I thought it might compromise his personal safety but that is all. If it were a League game I would also note it in my post match report in case the league Executive wished to raise it with the Club. One team which I tend to se at least 3 times a season contains identical twins. Luckily one bats left handed, the other right but it is an interesting question in that situation if an incident happened when you needed to know which is which,
LOL at the only guy on CW who is an umpire scoring 0/3
 

Biryani Pillow

U19 Vice-Captain
LOL at the only guy on CW who is an umpire scoring 0/3
That is only the view of John Holder on these matters.

It is not stated in the Laws of the game.

FWIW a lot of the answers he has given on his TMS slot have been questioned by umpire trainers and examiners.

On the first one you may give a decision which you are sure is correct but a player may see something you didn't. So you being 'sure' doesn't matter.

On the second one he is speculating on what might happen - not something you should do.

With the third one the fact that you may not like it is no reason for saying the batsman can't wear it. It is his opinion that he wouldn't allow it but there is nothing in the Laws that supports him.
 
Last edited:

Biryani Pillow

U19 Vice-Captain
Enjoyed have a go at those. Favourite is number 1 here



Who the **** would do that? My answer was 'give him out for being such a colossal bellend'
1. The ball becomes dead upon lodging in the clothing.

2. As long as the ball hasn't hit the ground it is out on appeal.

3. As long as the second hit isn't 'wilful' there is no problem.
 

wiff

First Class Debutant
I have visions of the player running towards the boundary with the ball in his pocket, being chased by all the fielders attempting to rugby tackle him, with benny hill music going.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
It has happened in a Test match even. I can't remember which one but I'm pretty sure I've seen it. Its not out.
Yeah but if it's going over the keepers shoulder and he catches it it's not going to land back in the groove is it
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Should be out tho, current rule is dumb. Once the zing bails flash red I'm afraid it's over for the batsmen.
 
Last edited:

TNT

Banned
Yeah but if it's going over the keepers shoulder and he catches it it's not going to land back in the groove is it
Its not because the bail could land back into the grooves but because the keeper has interfered with the wickets, the line has been crossed.
 

TNT

Banned
John Holder's verdict

1)
Your decision is final, and you cannot allow the appeal to be overturned just because it suits the fielding captain. The striker is given out caught. You should never revoke a decision which you believe is the right one. Famously, this happened in the 2011 Test between England and India when Ian bell was run-out after leaving the crease before the ball was dead. India agreed to withdraw their appeal after a request from England – but the umpires should not have overturned the decision. Run out was the correct call.
Don't understand this response, the umpire has the right to accept an appeal, this would depend a lot on why the captain withdrew the appeal, it could be they don't believe the catch was on the full, they may think the batsman was not ready or distracted by a fielder, the umpire would have to enquire why the captain requested the withdrawal and then make the decision from there, it could go either way.

England had no right to ask India to withdraw their appeal and the appeal must come before the player leaves the field.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Its not because the bail could land back into the grooves but because the keeper has interfered with the wickets, the line has been crossed.
And if he slaps it away from hitting his face? I'm with GIMH. Common sense has to be applied, if the bail rises up over 3-4 inches (a catch-able height), it isn't going back into the groove. And the Umpire should be able to take that into account when making the judgement.
 

TNT

Banned
And if he slaps it away from hitting his face? I'm with GIMH. Common sense has to be applied, if the bail rises up over 3-4 inches (a catch-able height), it isn't going back into the groove. And the Umpire should be able to take that into account when making the judgement.
Taking defensive action to prevent injury was not the question though, if a batsman interferes with a fielder taking a catch he will be given out even if the fielder may not have taken the catch. i.e if the striker lobs the ball over the bowlers head and the bowler turns to run after the catch and the non striker deliberately blocks the bowler he can be given out even if the bowler did not have a real chance of catching the ball.
 

Top