• 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

_Ed_

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is a very interesting thread. I'm guessing that if it happened just while completing a single and the non-striker kicks the ball into the stumps that wouldn't be out though?
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
_Ed_ said:
This is a very interesting thread. I'm guessing that if it happened just while completing a single and the non-striker kicks the ball into the stumps that wouldn't be out though?
Click to expand...
Only possible dismissal there would be obstructing the field, and then it would have to be intentional I believe.
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Tamara said:
The Answer is:.That batsman is out. And he/she is Bowled Basicly they have played the ball on.

And the answer has come from one of New Zealands top umpires.
Click to expand...
So in stead of kicking it into the striker's end, if he had kicked into the bowler's end while taking the first run(or third !!) he wouldnt have been out, right ?
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Tamara said:
The Answer is:.That batsman is out. And he/she is Bowled Basicly they have played the ball on.

And the answer has come from one of New Zealands top umpires.
Click to expand...
Does it mean that if had , unintentionally knocked it, not into the stumps but over the boundary (just asssume he did knock it that far), it would be four leg byes ??? :p
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
That is a stupid decision. IDK about the rules, but it is obvious that the batsman did not deserve to be out and it was just an accident. It is stupid of whoever appealed for it and it is stupid of whoever gave it out.
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
That is a stupid decision. IDK about the rules, but it is obvious that the batsman did not deserve to be out and it was just an accident. It is stupid of whoever appealed for it and it is stupid of whoever gave it out.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with that. It would be very silly to give the batsman out bowled for something which if the ball had deflected of a fielder would have resulted in an extra run !!

This is just carrying theory too far. Umpires are supposed to think also.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Someone tried to add a Law 55.
"Where instances are not covered by the above, common-sense applies."
In a way, it'd be nice, but you can see how it's not workable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top