Cricketing Queries

[Meet]

Then why will they give different names to it??
I guess its discriminated, if its above shoulder or head, not sure though.

 

[darthlewis1]

When people take their guard and ask the umpire for "2" what does that represent? I don't know as I've never umpired and always just asked for middle or middle and leg.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Then why will they give different names to it??
I guess its discriminated, if its above shoulder or head, not sure though.

If the ball goes over the batsman's head when he's at his regular stance, it is called a wide (cause he wouldn't be able to actually reach it properly). So if it is bowled too short it is a wide, and the square leg umpire usually signals when they thing it is.

If it's the second ball of the over that is at shoulder height or above, it is called a no-ball.

If it is both the second ball of the over that is above the shoulder AND above head height, I'm not sure which gets called first.

When people take their guard and ask the umpire for "2" what does that represent? I don't know as I've never umpired and always just asked for middle or middle and leg.

I think that means middle. Not sure. I've seen them ask for 1 when taking a leg stump guard, so 2 probably means either another imaginary stump wide of leg, or a middle stump guard.
Most probably the latter...who marks a guard 1 stump wider of leg...

 

[Sureshot]

If the ball goes over the batsman's head when he's at his regular stance, it is called a wide (cause he wouldn't be able to actually reach it properly). So if it is bowled too short it is a wide, and the square leg umpire usually signals when they thing it is.

If it's the second ball of the over that is at shoulder height or above, it is called a no-ball.

If it is both the second ball of the over that is above the shoulder AND above head height, I'm not sure which gets called first.

No-ball.

No-ball over-rides everything else, your explanation is spot on. It's a No-ball because he's already bowled one over shoulder height (these rules can vary through competition on how many you are allowed, but the principle is the same).

 

[tarun87]

When people take their guard and ask the umpire for "2" what does that represent? I don't know as I've never umpired and always just asked for middle or middle and leg.

between middle and leg

 

[shravi]

What is the greatest amount of balls that have been bowled at a stretch with a batsman who is out in the middle not facing a delivery because his partner is taking up all the strike? This can be calculated from the very beginning of his innings or in the middle of it.

(any format)

 

[Chewie]

That's the sort of thing you should be asking Steven on Cricinfo, not us

 

[Haarithan]

I have already posted this over at the Hawk eye thread, but this also qualifies as a query so I'm as well posting it here given that I'm highly eager of getting this doubt cleared asap.

After this dubious decision to give Chanderpaul out lbw today, I'm having this doubt regarding the usage of DRS for the upcoming series between England and India. As it stands, Hawk Eye isn't a part of the England India series, but tell me what happens if a situation like this is encountered:

A player is given out lbw when the ball has clearly hit the batsman's pads outside the line and the batsman's well aware of that and feels confident of referring that. In that case, under the normal implementation of the DRS, we would be getting the decision as:

Pitched - outside off
Impact - Outside (green)
Original decision - out (red)

Overturned decision - Not out (green)

But does that 'Impact' part come under the usage of hawk eye is my question? I mean the hawk eye is basically used to predict the future path taken by the ball once it pitched, and just predicts whether the wickets are hitting/non hitting. So practically speaking, anything before the ball pitching isn't a part of the hawk eye, so can that decision be overturned without the usage of hawk eye?

 

[Skater]

A scenario like that will probably be umpire's call. The third umpire will be looking at where the ball hit the pad but is unlikely to overturn the decision unless it was a glaring error. It could give way to some Daryl Harper-like horrors.

 

[Fenil]

If the ball goes over the batsman's head when he's at his regular stance, it is called a wide (cause he wouldn't be able to actually reach it properly). So if it is bowled too short it is a wide, and the square leg umpire usually signals when they thing it is.

If it's the second ball of the over that is at shoulder height or above, it is called a no-ball.

If it is both the second ball of the over that is above the shoulder AND above head height, I'm not sure which gets called first.

It will be called as no-ball as there was a rule till now that a bowler cannot bowl more than a bouncer in an over. If he/she does so, the subsequent bouncer(s) will be declared as no-ball(s).

Though according to new rule, a bowler can now bowl upto 2 bouncers in an over.

 

[Insomniac]

I have already posted this over at the Hawk eye thread, but this also qualifies as a query so I'm as well posting it here given that I'm highly eager of getting this doubt cleared asap.

After this dubious decision to give Chanderpaul out lbw today, I'm having this doubt regarding the usage of DRS for the upcoming series between England and India. As it stands, Hawk Eye isn't a part of the England India series, but tell me what happens if a situation like this is encountered:

A player is given out lbw when the ball has clearly hit the batsman's pads outside the line and the batsman's well aware of that and feels confident of referring that. In that case, under the normal implementation of the DRS, we would be getting the decision as:

Pitched - outside off
Impact - Outside (green)
Original decision - out (red)

Overturned decision - Not out (green)

But does that 'Impact' part come under the usage of hawk eye is my question? I mean the hawk eye is basically used to predict the future path taken by the ball once it pitched, and just predicts whether the wickets are hitting/non hitting. So practically speaking, anything before the ball pitching isn't a part of the hawk eye, so can that decision be overturned without the usage of hawk eye?

From my reading on Cricinfo on the situation, the LBW will not be changed although it is clearly obvious the decision is wrong.

Unless there was an inside edge, there will be no change in the decision.

 

[Sureshot]

It's interesting isn't it, I can see this scenario:

Batsman given out LBW, he reviews it as he thinks (but doesn't actually think he has) he hit it. Snicko and some other camera angle show that it is obvious the bat didn't hit the ball, however camera angle also shows that the ball hit the pads about 3 inches outside the stumps.

Though generally it's not the impact that umpires get wrong and if they do it's normally such a tight call that you don't mind the fact that the umpire got it wrong.

Karma says the above scenario will happen though and it'll happen to India. I hope it happens many times to them so they can forced in to admitting that they are idiots and the they SHOULDN'T be allowed to dictate how the game is run.

 

[sifter132]

OK guys show me how smart you are (cause I'm not feeling very smart...):
When does the 'maximum of 5 fielders on the legside' rule apply? Was watching the SL-Aus match and Herath looked like he had 7 on the leg side at one stage. Is it an ODI only rule? Is it a fast bowler only rule? Have they abolished the rule? Or was I just dreaming?

 

[Sureshot]

ODI rule. In Tests/First Class the only fielding restriction is no more than 2 fielders behind square on the leg side, which came in after Bodyline.

 

[sifter132]

Aha OK. Thanks - I was wondering who started that rule and why it always get applied in my park cricket games