No, I'm.... no.
Cricketing Queries
- Thread starter age of the fall
- Start date
No, I'm.... no.
Dabi
Club Captain
In the case of disputed catches, is the fielder's word taken only if prior to the series both captain agree to take it or is it taken regardless? What about in Worldcups and other multination tournaments?
Would really love to know if someone could clarify this using the ICC rulebook!
Would really love to know if someone could clarify this using the ICC rulebook!
sohum
Executive member
The fielder's word thing is not in the rulebook, it is an agreement that the batsman will walk if the fielder says he has caught it cleanly. It is usually executed via a pre-series agreement.
I haven't looked in the rulebook, but it is always a bit iffy with catches. I think that if the umpire has judged that the batsman has hit the ball and it is eligible for the catch, he can defer to the third umpire to determine if the catch was taken cleanly. Benefit of doubt goes to the batsman, as usual.
I haven't looked in the rulebook, but it is always a bit iffy with catches. I think that if the umpire has judged that the batsman has hit the ball and it is eligible for the catch, he can defer to the third umpire to determine if the catch was taken cleanly. Benefit of doubt goes to the batsman, as usual.
This has always really puzzled me, but there's probably a really obvious answer.
Why are South African players allowed to play as kolpak players in England, but still come back and play domestic cricket in South Africa over England's winter as doemstic players, while when New Zealanders go over to England to play as kolpak players, when they comes back to New Zealand over England's winter and they count as an international player for our domestic teams?
For example, Andre Adams and Hamish Marshall.
Why are South African players allowed to play as kolpak players in England, but still come back and play domestic cricket in South Africa over England's winter as doemstic players, while when New Zealanders go over to England to play as kolpak players, when they comes back to New Zealand over England's winter and they count as an international player for our domestic teams?
For example, Andre Adams and Hamish Marshall.
Gaurav_7
Executive member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Profile Flag
- India
I was of the opinion it does. Commentators keep on repeating it so many times for a run out or an LBW shout.
Yeah, especially Shastri. :laugh
sohum
Executive member
I didn't say it was in the rules, did I?
sohum added 3 Minutes and 26 Seconds later...
The rules are not supposed to take into account every single situation. Even more importantly, rules can't be based on subjective situations. Rules have the form:
If x happens, then y.
They'd be useless if they were of the form:
If x happens or it looks like x may have happened, then y.
Who is to decide if "x may have happened"? The rules cannot be subjective like that. Umpires in principal rely on the benefit of the doubt standard when enforcing the rules. The ICC even kind of mandates this, with them clarifying that the benefit of the doubt went to the fielders when it couldn't be determined whether they had saved a boundary or not.
No, but it is inferred by many a commentator, and as seen above with User2010 these mis-interpretations get passed down to the fans.
They're starting to remove some of these "dodgy" situations, I vaguely remember reading plans to make it so that a batsman only has to have a part of his body behind the line, rather than it actually grounded. I've also heard strong rumours that the boundary issue will also be removed, whereby it only be if the ball touches the boundary, rather than any part of the fielder when in contact with the ball, etc.
What happens in Umpire training (in theory) is that they are taught that each action whereby an Umpire needs to be making decisions has to be based on Yes or No, there is no middle ground. Maybe cannot exist outside of 3rd Umpire situations.
sohum
Executive member
That's how the rules are designed. The whole purpose of the benefit of the doubt system is that if an umpire isn't sure whether it is a yes or no, they rule in favor of the batsman. It's just a tool used in the decision process because it would be ridiculous to assume that each and every situation can be unanimously and immediately decided as a yes or no. It's not like a different rule is being applied when you apply the benefit of the doubt.
TumTum
International Cricketer
Does a runner need a bat?
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
What about a box? Would be awkward to check, and running without one is sure as hell easier.
Same with thigh pad and all the extra padding that some guys wear.
Same with thigh pad and all the extra padding that some guys wear.
Symptom_Control
School Cricketer
surely they have to retire from int. to qualify? some sa kolpaks had played for SA but retired. I think there's a 12 month period before you can qualify
They have to be padded up just like a regular batsman. I'd assume that includes a box and thigh pad.
I don't know how and if they check though.
