Ask ***** - CricketWeb's 'Ask the umpire' thread

[vic_orthdox]

Fielding side helmets must be kept behind the wicketkeeper, so if that occurs I'd be hitting the fielding side with 5 penalty runs (plus runs completed etc etc) under either Law 42.5 (Deliberate distraction of obstruction of batsman) or Law 41.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side).

I wonder if there's an argument for two separate 5 run penalties there?

The ball is immediately dead upon contact with the helmet, so no 4 or 6 is scored.

Was that rule changed after Brearley used the helmet at certain positions to entice the batsman to hit at it? Didn't know that the rule was that it HAD to be behind the helmet.

 

[Howe_zat]

is it still legal for an lbw if it hits the batsman on the full above the stumps but was going on to hit them?

let's say it's a legal ball by all other means eg not a no ball because the batsman's sulieman benn or smth

pfft even i can answer that one

'height of impact' is nothing to do with the law. so yes

 

[Daemon]

pfft even i can answer that one

'height of impact' is nothing to do with the law. so yes

Should've waited for ***** to write another essay on it

 

[Adders]

Isn't ***** feeling important thanks to this thread. WAC.

I think ***** is gonna be the new Jono. We all love him, but the noobies would never know it cos everyone gives him ****.

 

[Howe_zat]

We all love him

I think you've severely misunderstood the situation.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think ***** is gonna be the new Jono. We all love him

Yeah no speak for yourself please

 

[Dan]

Was that rule changed after Brearley used the helmet at certain positions to entice the batsman to hit at it? Didn't know that the rule was that it HAD to be behind the helmet.

Yep, exactly right.

 

[fredfertang]

Isn't ***** feeling important thanks to this thread. WAC.

I think ***** is gonna be the new Jono. We all love him, but the noobies would never know it cos everyone gives him ****.

Maybe ***** has kidnapped Jono?

would explain a good deal

 

[Daemon]

It's really cute how Dan is slightly miffed at his umpiring skills not being acknowledged and so has posted several concise, well worded responses in order to undermine *****.

 

[Burgey]

Ok

 

[Daemon]

Ok

Cute

 

[TheJediBrah]

Several occasions as a kid had umpires that didn't understand the lbw law, at all. Thinking that "pitching outside off" was relevant, not knowing that pitching outside leg wasn't out, not knowing that you had to play a shot to benefit from the ball hitting outside the line etc.

These are extreme situations, but I haven't seen many occasions in club cricket where the umpire has even been as knowledgeable about the game as the players, let alone more so. Which sucks because how do you expect the players to respect the umpires when they genuinely don't know what they're doing.

The first innings went smoothly. It was in the second innings where things got interesting. The team with 9 players was now fielding, and defending around 210 in 35 overs, they wanted to make use of the relatively large boundaries and put 5 fielders out in the deep. Basically force the other side to run all their runs and make the boundaries hard to come by.

But that's when the other umpire and I told them they must have 4 fielders in the ring at all times.

That was our big mistake. The rule actually states that they can't have more than 5 fielders outside of the ring. Not that they must have 4 inside the ring. Given they just had 7 fielders to work with, this mean they should have been able to have 5 outside and 2 inside, and not 3 outside and 4 inside that we forced them to do.

We were only alerted to this mistake at the end of the match by another senior umpire who was watching the game (his daughter was playing). It was laughed off because it was an inconsequential league game and women's cricket isn't taken so seriously, but I felt really bad about that.

This is a weird one, not sure how that happened. There's never been any rules about having fielders inside the circle afaik, it's always a limitation of how many you can have outside. I reckon it's a result of tv commentators always talking about it and the umpires just went with that.

 

[indiaholic]

The answer to how it happened is that ***** was the umpire.

 

[Bijed]

What happens if the bowling side decides never to take the new ball during an innings, and the batting side just bats on and on for ages to the point where the ball is basically just falling apart? I know replacement balls of varying ages are on hand in case the ball is lost or fails that hoop test thingy, but I assume there's an upper limit on the ages of the spares they keep around? For the purposes of this pedantic question, I'm talking like 200 overs of use (if it physically lasts that long) - would it just be (fairly continually) replaced by the oldest available spare ball?

 

[Starfighter]

I'd be guessing so if the ball fell apart to the point where it was unusable. I'm not sure how quickly that would happen. When Lance Gibbs took 8/38 at Bridgetown in '52 that was with a 185 over old ball. The new ball in WI at the time was at 200 runs and India never made it.

Of course I doubt that ball would have fit through the gauge they use these days.

 

[srbhkshk]

Any ball change after 110 overs is required to be a new ball.

 

[Starfighter]

ICC ruining the chance of anything truly funky happening in cricket again.

 

[Pup Clarke]

One scenario which I've always wondered about - say a spin bowler see's a batsman advancing down the pitch, stops his action, and the delivers the ball over the batsman's head where the keeper completes the stumping

Would this be out?

 

[trundler]

It should be since Mankading is out.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

One scenario which I've always wondered about - say a spin bowler see's a batsman advancing down the pitch, stops his action, and the delivers the ball over the batsman's head where the keeper completes the stumping

Would this be out?

I would call it a no-ball. Would it be deemed a stumping?

No. It's a run out.

Final decision: OUT