Cricketing Queries

[Insomniac]

I remember an incident in the 2007 World Cup (Pak v Zim), where the batsman had a runner.

There was a stumping appeal, which was very close, and on the line. But it was noticed, that the runner was standing out of his crease (for no reason, he was just stupidly out there), and thus the batsman was given out.

However, he was given run out, and not stumped - which is why I was thinking you could be given out run out on a stumping (on a free hit).

 

[Sureshot]

In that situation he was given out 'run out' because the runner was attempting a run (obviously the runner can't be stumped, as he can't play a stroke). You can't be out stumped on a free hit, because it's a dismissal from the bowler and the free hit is in the same as a no-ball in that case.

Being out of your ground trying to play a shot isn't the same as being out of your ground trying to make a run. The umpire has to make this distinction themselves, but it should be fairly obvious, making a run is a very intentional act.

What happens if the ball hits the batsman remains in front of the stumps, he doesn't attempt a run, but is out of his ground?

The wicket keeper can come in front of the wicket to stump te striker only after the ball has first come in to the contact with the striker's bat or person.

Any interference from a fielder or the wicket keeper's helmet shall mean he should be out run out, not stumped. Of course, human error will always come in to it, but the rules are quite clear on it, but it could be easy to forget some rule (they very often interlock) in the heat of a cricket match by the umpire.

 

[Insomniac]

In that situation he was given out 'run out' because the runner was attempting a run (obviously the runner can't be stumped, as he can't play a stroke). You can't be out stumped on a free hit, because it's a dismissal from the bowler and the free hit is in the same as a no-ball in that case.

Being out of your ground trying to play a shot isn't the same as being out of your ground trying to make a run. The umpire has to make this distinction themselves, but it should be fairly obvious, making a run is a very intentional act.

What happens if the ball hits the batsman remains in front of the stumps, he doesn't attempt a run, but is out of his ground?

The wicket keeper can come in front of the wicket to stump te striker only after the ball has first come in to the contact with the striker's bat or person.

Any interference from a fielder or the wicket keeper's helmet shall mean he should be out run out, not stumped. Of course, human error will always come in to it, but the rules are quite clear on it, but it could be easy to forget some rule (they very often interlock) in the heat of a cricket match by the umpire.

But the runner wasn't attempting a run, he was just stupidly standing there outside his crease with his bat to his side chewing his gum.

And I don't get the second part of your post? So the batsman comes down his crease, and pads up to a delivery, and it just rolls in front of him. Assuming there's no fielder around the wicket, the wicket-keeper can't come forward to collect the ball?!

Or if he does that, then it's a run out and not a stumping?

 

[mohit_dude10]

I think if the batsman is out of the crease he can still be run-out, because if intention was looked at, why was murli given out when he went to congratulate sangakkara?

Pretty confusing rule.

 

[Sureshot]

If the runner is standing outside of the crease (even if he's sat on the loo) he's attempting a run. You're trying to overcomplicate things.

So the batsman comes down his crease, and pads up to a delivery, and it just rolls in front of him. Assuming there's no fielder around the wicket, the wicket-keeper can't come forward to collect the ball?!

Course he can, as it has hit the batsman.

It'd be up to the umpire to determine whether it's a run out or a stumping. If he was still in the position he was when playing a shot, it will be a stumping.

Mohit - Murali was the non-strike batsman, how can he be out anyway other than run out?

It's pretty obvious whether someone is out of their ground trying to play a shot and out of their ground attempting to make a run. Even if that attempt is standing outside of the crease reading a newspaper.

 

[mohit_dude10]

Pretty much clears my doubt.

Another question I have is, If the team is needing 1 run to win and the batsman needs 2 to complete his milestone (50/100/200..) if he runs 2 will both count or will the match end once he scores the single?

 

[Chewie]

Both runs will count

 

[AbhishekS]

Both runs will count

Are you sure? Won't the match just end as soon as the first run is completed. I am saying this because Sehwag was denied his century when Randiv bowled that no ball. According to the rules, the match just finished as soon as the no-ball was bowled as the required one run was scored.

 

[6ry4nj]

Are you sure? Won't the match just end as soon as the first run is completed. I am saying this because Sehwag was denied his century when Randiv bowled that no ball. According to the rules, the match just finished as soon as the no-ball was bowled as the required one run was scored.

Yudi you can see, can't you, that's a completely different case? It would be the same if Sehwag had hit the no-ball and run, but you can't expect the losing side to bowl more balls after they've lost. If you can get the runs FROM THAT BALL, they count - otherwise bad luck.

 

[AbhishekS]

It would be the same if Sehwag had hit the no-ball and run

He struck a six on 99, and remained on the same score.

 

[Themer]

Every run hit off that ball counts as a no ball.

 

[mohit_dude10]

Every run hit off that ball counts as a no ball.

Don't think so, in Sehwag's case it was said the match finished when umpire called it a no-ball and India won, sehwag's 6 was ignored, otherwise if India needed say.. more than 10 that 6 would have been credited to Sehwag's score.

 

[Themer]

"A no ball adds one run to the batting team's score, in addition to any other runs which are scored off it"

Pretty sure that every run off a no ball is a no ball.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I actually thought that ruling by the scorers not to give Viru the ton was insane. He hit a 6 off the no-ball, that wins the game.

Other times when a side chases down a target by hitting a four to end the game, the score shows it. Like 196/3 beats 192 a/o.

In that sense, this was essentially 7 runs off the last ball with 1 needed. It should have been fine, runs should have counted.

They must rule it differently for no-balls. Which is strange.

----------

Every run hit off that ball counts as a no ball.

Nope. I've noticed this, everyone run off a wide counts as a wide. Every run of a no-ball counts as runs to the batsman if the batsman hits it, or as byes.

So the third bouncer of an over that goes for four when the keeper misses it is a no-ball + 4 byes.
A no-ball hit for fours is a no-ball + 4 runs to the batsman.

Atleast, that's what I've always done for scoring. I've seen runs scored off no-balls add to the batsman's score and not extras, so I'm pretty sure it works this way.

 

[mohit_dude10]

"A no ball adds one run to the batting team's score, in addition to any other runs which are scored off it"

Pretty sure that every run off a no ball is a no ball.

It says the additional runs are added to team score, doesn't say it goes into extras. Anyway i'm quite sure it is added to batsman's tally, don't remember any instance currently, but i have seen it.