Cricketing Queries

[Sureshot]

I think Sureshot may be more qualified to comment on this, but as I remember, it started with being out if it pitched either side. But then spinners would exploit that, so it became that you could only be out LBW if it pitched and hit in line with the stumps.

Then came Sonny Ramdhin and Alf Valentine, and some batsman in England kept padding up to them when they pitched outside off, and neutralized their threat. So after that, the law was changed so that you can be given out if it pitches outside off and you don't play a shot.

My understanding is that the rule changed around Bodyline, though there was some discussion about how LBW worked before that. But it used to be that you could only be out LBW if the ball pitched in-line with the stumps (in fact if you played a shot before the change, you couldn't be out LBW). So by allowing bowlers to get wickets by attacking the off-stump and it encouraged bowlers to attack, along with changes to fielding regulations this stopped bowlers bowling leg-side like they did in Bodyline tour.

So you've never been able to be out if it pitches outside Leg Stump, the only exception is with a delivery that pitches twice, then the batsman can be out, then again, he deserves to be if he can't hit a ball which pitches twice!

LBW law works very well IMO and shouldn't be changed. If you allowed bowlers to pitch it outside leg stump and get LBW, not only does it make the umpires job significantly harder, but we'll start getting towards leg-side bowling, which we shouldn't be aiming for.

I think being stumped off wide isn't fair - can't work out why that is allowed.
Another one is after taking a wicket - usually a catch - you can run the non striker out. We actually used to do it when we were kids in the park. (Also known as a double-play)

1) With the modern age leg-side wides if a batsman can't hit it then he deserves to be stumped!

In the laws the difference is on a wording. A No-Ball is an illegal delivery but a wide is an unfair delivery. There might not seem to be any difference between those two words but there is a clear distinction. No-Ball will always take precedent over Wide because it's illegal and not unfair, like the wide.

2) Nope, that is wrong. As soon as the wicket is taken, then the ball is dead, so you can't run out the non-striker. Some examples:

If a batsman is hit on the pad and the team appeal for the lbw, in the mean time the ball runs to the short-leg fielder and he manages to break the wicket and the striker is out of his ground, before the umpire gives the batsman out. The batsman is out LBW and not Run Out because the LBW happened first.

If a batsman is hit on the pads and the ball goes for 4 leg byes, the umpire says not out, the team successfully overturns the decision through umpire review, the 4 leg byes are removed from the scoreboard.

That all said, I vaguely remember doing a similar thing at school, but as for the rules of the game, it's wrong.

 

[sohum]

Yep, there are no double-plays in cricket. I remember it being discussed during the time they were trying super-subs and the like, but double and triple-plays right now are restricted to baseball.

 

[Meet]

Could anyone please mind to say the conditions for getting one LBW when reviewed?
I have seen in IND vs IRE, that even when the ball hits the stumps(hawk eye) still it was given not out?

 

[mohit_dude10]

If it is out-side the line of off stump and batsman is genuinely playing a shot, it is not given out.

 

[sohum]

Could anyone please mind to say the conditions for getting one LBW when reviewed?
I have seen in IND vs IRE, that even when the ball hits the stumps(hawk eye) still it was given not out?

The conditions for LBW are:

1. The all does not pitch outside the line of leg-stump.
2. The all strikes the batsman in line with off-stump if he is playing a shot.

For reviews, I think they make sure:

1. The ball was not a no-ball.
2. The ball did not pitch outside leg stump.
3. The ball did not strike the batsman outside off stump, unless he was leaving the ball.
4. The impact did not occur greater than 2.5m from the stumps.
5. The ball (according to HawkEye) was hitting the stumps.

 

[mohit_dude10]

4. The impact did not occur greater than 2.5m from the stumps.

It has been modified now, If it hits any part of the middle stump it can be given out even if the impact was greater than 2.5m.

 

[pcfan123]

When was the two bouncer limit introduced in Test cricket? Was it before or after the use of helmets?

Anyone else think it's time to do away with that rule in Test cricket?

 

[darthlewis1]

When was the two bouncer limit introduced in Test cricket? Was it before or after the use of helmets?

Anyone else think it's time to do away with that rule in Test cricket?

I don't know when it was introduced but I think they should get rid of that rule, Test cricket is a tough sport so I don't know why they limit the number of bouncers.

 

[Paki007]

can anybody explain what is doosra?

 

[AbhishekS]

can anybody explain what is doosra?

Doosra is a delivery which the off spinners bowl, keeping the action nearly the same but turning the ball in the opposite direction (from leg to off for a right handed batsman).

Like there is a googly for leg spinners, doosra is for the off spinners.

 

[Paki007]

hmm i think i got it now.i was sicked of this word through out this WC

 

[AbhishekS]

How do I view the last 10-12 scores of a batsman on Cricinfo?

 

[Will Browne]

If they play international cricket, you will see a statsguru option by their statistics. Click on that and select batting innings list. A list will come up with every innings they have played in that format (Test/ODI/IT20).

 

[Meet]

A noob question:When a bouncer is called wide and when it's called a no-ball?

 

[Aditya]

If it's the first bouncer in the over then it is called a wide and if it's the second bouncer in the over then it is called a no-ball.