Cricketing Queries

[Themer]

If I'm wrong, which I might very well be, then Sehwag should have got a century. I'm just looking for reasons as to why he wasn't given the runs if he had hit a six off the no ball and thats the only one I could come up with.

 

[mohit_dude10]

Well lots of explanation came after that incident, most indicating that according to cricketing rules, The 6 came after Umpire declared it a no-ball, The instance it was called no-ball India won(so any runs there after ignored). Thats why the question came to my mind what would have happened if it was not a no-ball and team needed 1 and batsman ran 2 to achieve his milestone would the 2nd run count or no.

 

[Themer]

The 6 came after Umpire declared it a no-ball, The instance it was called no-ball India won(so any runs there after ignored).

I don't think it works like that. Even if the moment he bowled a no ball runs are still counted that are scored off the bat even if the game is already won. If not they should be.

Awaits Sureshot for correct answer

 

[sohum]

They should be counted but I don't think they are as per the rules.

As for the no-ball query, runs scored off a no-ball by the batsman are counted towards the batsman's score because it counts as a ball faced. Wides, on the other hand, don't count as a ball faced (not to mention that the batsman didn't hit the ball).

As for the 2 runs question, I believe the batsman would only be credited one run and wouldn't reach their milestone because the target would have been reached as soon as both batsmen reached their crease for the first run. Comparatively, a four or a six is an atomic runscoring option--you can't score only one run of a boundary. Which is why a four or six is counted even if you go past the target.

The qualm I have with the Sehwag incident is that it counted as a ball faced but the match was over before the ball was hit, which is why the runs didn't count. If the match was over before the ball was hit, then it was over before the ball was faced, by my estimation. Which is why either it shouldn't have counted as a ball or runs. But if they did that it would screw up the accounting for no-balls. So basically, it should have counted for both runs and balls faced and India should have scored 7 more runs that whoever they were playing.

 

[Sureshot]

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?

The game finishes as the 1st run is completed. A good example for this rule is the T20 the other night when Woakes hit the ball over the infield, because they completed the single before the ball hit the boundary it was only 1 to his score, if it had hit the boundary before he completed the run it'd be 4/6 to his score.

Ollie - Mohit is right, once the no-ball has been called the game is over as the target has been reached. The run from the no-ball is added to the total before any runs could be scored. It was horrible sportsmanship, but played out exactly to the rules.

The No-ball runs question has been answered I see.

So basically, it should have counted for both runs and balls faced and India should have scored 7 more runs that whoever they were playing.

Nope, once the no-ball has been called that happens before and means the game has been completed. I can't find any information to say that the ball should not have counted as a ball faced by the batsman. I'm still looking, but it's a pretty rare incident, but it will probably be covered somewhere.

My understanding is that it counts as a ball faced because the call of a dead ball (match completed) came after the batsman hit the ball. I'm fairly confident that's the solution, but will investigate more after dinner.

 

[Themer]

Woakes hit the ball over the infield, because they completed the single before the ball hit the boundary it was only 1 to his score

Woakes hit the ball to a player in the outfield but I get your drift.

 

[AbhishekS]

What would have happened if Sehwag would have been stumped on 99 in an attempt to hit the six off the no ball?

 

[Sureshot]

He can't be stumped.

Ollie - Only saw there was a fielder out there today, why put a fielder on the boundary when they need 1 to win?

 

[Gurjot95]

What would have happened if Sehwag would have been stumped on 99 in an attempt to hit the six off the no ball?

You can't get out on no-ball unless it's run out ofcourse.

 

[Sureshot]

No, because the game finishes as soon as the no-ball has occured. You cannot be out in the situation where a no-ball penalty wins the game.

 

[AbhishekS]

Why was the ball counted under Sehwag's name?

 

[Ollie_H]

He can't be stumped.

Ollie - Only saw there was a fielder out there today, why put a fielder on the boundary when they need 1 to win?

Think you're confusing me with Jack.

 

[sohum]

Nope, once the no-ball has been called that happens before and means the game has been completed. I can't find any information to say that the ball should not have counted as a ball faced by the batsman. I'm still looking, but it's a pretty rare incident, but it will probably be covered somewhere.

My understanding is that it counts as a ball faced because the call of a dead ball (match completed) came after the batsman hit the ball. I'm fairly confident that's the solution, but will investigate more after dinner.

My final call was what I thought should have happened, not what happened under the laws, which are not logical in this situation, to be honest. The call of match completed happened before the batsman hit the ball--it happened as soon as the no-ball was called.

In my opinion (not the laws) the ball should not be counted as a ball faced if you don't have the opportunity to score runs off of it. And to make it more simple, the match should only be able to reach completion after the complete action of a ball--it should be atomic.

 

[Sureshot]

I agree on the aspect that Sehwag shouldn't have a ball faced count against him if the match completes on the point of the no-ball, which is right imo. I don't understand it, though it's completely frivolous and matters not a jot.

Can't agree that the ball should be played to it's completion, the no-ball will take precedent as it's happened before the ball has been delivered, it's why it's an illegal delivery.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

If a low-ranked team, like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe, win the World Cup, would the ranking system reflect this and put them at the top, even if they do not have enough points?