-
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.
Interesting question
- Thread starter Kiwi
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
YaY! I got it right. I knew I would be right!
And all Ive got to say is....... told ya so!
And all Ive got to say is....... told ya so!
Yeah the umpires gave it to both teams at the final at the weekend when it was raining and no-one got it right. But basicly thinking about it now it is the same as playing the ball onto your pads and then it going onto your stumps.
Anyway I found it interesting. Thought you might as well.
Anyway I found it interesting. Thought you might as well.
James
Cricket Web Owner
Any idea where we'd find this in the rules Tamara - http://www.cricketweb.net/resources/laws.shtml ?
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
I got it second. Go me.
It makes sence though.
It makes sence though.
This would have been out if the match was played after 2000
In the 2000 code the following change was made:
Law 30 (BOWLED)
CHANGE
‘Before completion of stroke’ no longer a consideration. Striker is vulnerable until contact between ball and fielder or umpire.
Since the batter had completed the stroke it wouldnt have been out bowled according to the old laws.
In the 2000 code the following change was made:
Law 30 (BOWLED)
CHANGE
‘Before completion of stroke’ no longer a consideration. Striker is vulnerable until contact between ball and fielder or umpire.
Since the batter had completed the stroke it wouldnt have been out bowled according to the old laws.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
age_master said:
Slow Love™
International Captain
Ah... That's certainly what got me - I thought that seeing as the batsman had finished his stroke, he was safe.shankar said:
Interesting... I had no idea that rule had changed.
Slow Love™
International Captain
I guess they must be referring to that incident in the early 90's, when South Africa were touring Australia, and Waugh knocked out his stumps with his bat, stepping away from the crease. The umpire's adjudged against "hit wicket", because he had finished his shot and was walking away casually sideways. I think it was the incident that lead to Cronje throwing a stump at the dressing room door.marc71178 said:
Not sure that would have an impact in this rule change, because he still couldn't have been given out bowled - the ball never hit the stumps.
bugssy
Cricketer Of The Year
if the umpire doesnt raise the finger but the batsmen walks on his own accord the batsmen is deemed out.
we had one on the weekend where the batsmen hit the cover of it and we all went up, the batsmen hit the ball that hard he didnt wait for the umpires decision however the umpire didnt hear it so was none the wiser then the batsmen decided to turn around as he seen the umpire didnt give it and we said u cant do that and the square leg umpire siad yep even i heard it so he continued to walk off, give out in the book.
we had one on the weekend where the batsmen hit the cover of it and we all went up, the batsmen hit the ball that hard he didnt wait for the umpires decision however the umpire didnt hear it so was none the wiser then the batsmen decided to turn around as he seen the umpire didnt give it and we said u cant do that and the square leg umpire siad yep even i heard it so he continued to walk off, give out in the book.
Jamee999
Hall of Fame Member
Sorry for thread-digging but was playing in the garden today and the following happened:
The ball was bowled the batsman(me) missed the ball, it hit a stump, the stump had visibly moved backwards but not out of the ground BUT the bails had not fallen off.
What is your verdict?
The ball was bowled the batsman(me) missed the ball, it hit a stump, the stump had visibly moved backwards but not out of the ground BUT the bails had not fallen off.
What is your verdict?
SpeedKing
U19 Vice-Captain
Not outJamee999 said:
i remember Graeme Smith tredding on his stunps off an Anderson delivery in the SA-England tour 2003. Bails didn't fall although on the replay it showed that the stumps lent backwards. It was the second time he did it that series, the first time the bails fell of so was out.
On that basis, a batman isnt out if the bails don't come off.
SpeedKing
U19 Vice-Captain
Exactly they don't deserve that wcket. It should have been something likemarc71178 said:What Mark Waugh incident?
I find it disgusting that the bowler would get the credit for a wicket he clearly doesn't deserve in this case!
P. Coverdrives b. P. Coverdrives ...21
Because he got himself run himself out not the one of 11 men who stood round the wicket and watched the batsmen run. How can a whole team be so lazy. i can only imagine the B*ll*cking their Wk, point and square leg must have got from the coach.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, it is not out. There is a very interesting story in this regard.Jamee999 said:
Actually, very very long time ago, in a match(it was at least a first class game if not a test match), the middle stump was knocked out of the ground by a bowler and the wickets did not fall !!
Actually, due to the heat, the varnish on the bails had melted and they got stuck to each other (and maybe even the leg and off stump). The batsman was given not out but after that, varnished bails were not allowed in any representative match !!
There have been instances of bails jumping up and coming down to rest back on the stumps and the batsman has been declared not out too