As the bowler has bowled a delivery, the batsman's wicket is down; the person has touched it with their foot and bat but this is covered in the last sentence.Law 30 (Bowled)
1. Out Bowled
(a) The striker is out Bowled if his wicket is put down by a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, even if it first touches his bat or person.
This must have happened after the Mark Waugh incident.shankar said: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.
age_master said:but isn't she bowled....
i thought it would be just like playing on
Ah... That's certainly what got me - I thought that seeing as the batsman had finished his stroke, he was safe.shankar said: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.
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:What Mark Waugh incident?
Did the batsman get credited for the run completed before being"bowled out"?/?The Answer is:.That batsman is out. And he/she is Bowled Basicly they have played the ball on.
Not outJamee999 said: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?
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!
lolSpeedKing said:Exactly they don't deserve that wcket. It should have been something like
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.
Yes, it is not out. There is a very interesting story in this regard.Jamee999 said: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?