I think it would be not out, provided it is confirmed that the batsman didn’t do it intentionally. It looks similar to the case when the ball hits the running batsman and a direct hit is stopped because of which.
Official, confirmed, verified "You are the umpire" thread
- Thread starter qpeedore
- Start date
Haven’t you asked one like this before in the same thread? That time the ODI match was completed in 30 over (total), and this time because of rains.
** cheats answer from previous question **
I think it should be allowed if they wanna play, however I don’t think it would be granted OFFICIAL status.
qpeedore
SOTM Winner - July 2014
There's a difference. There was a result then. Now there isn't a result.
Match Abandoned is a result right?
NILAYSHAH60
Dreamcatcher
Okay so as we come onto this now
I remember reading it in Sachin Tendulkar's Autobiography (Playing it My Way) where Sachin mentioned that they played a exhibition T20 game when an Indo-Pak encounter was called off due to rain (it was meant to be his first match in limited overs Cricket for India, in this match he smashed Abdul Qadir for 25 runs in one over). Now my take on this is it would be unfair to call this an official match because this was meant to be an ODI game by default and the teams would definitely be made keeping 50 overs in mind so this probably takes away the competitive advantage from a team that doesn't have power hitters or T20 specialist. I also remember how England struggled in the Champions Trophy Final in 2013 against India because of this and the pitch certainly didn't have much to offer for a T20I game. So I think it is okay to have an unofficial exhibition kind of a match for the spectators to enjoy but not an official one.
Now since this wasn't done on purpose I wouldn't take anything away from the batting side nor I am saying the bowling sides needs to be penalized for it. It is just a part of the game and it just happens in pressure situations. I would rather first consult both sides about what's their take on this and then come to a conclusive decision.
In Cricket we are mostly concerned with the first point of impact rather than anything else. There are cases where the ball hits the helmet of a batsman and then takes the edge of the bat and goes for the boundary which is uncontrollable and hence in such cases it's the batsman who gets favoured. So in the above case I think the batsman have tried to take an unfair advantage of his protective gear to hit the ball so the batsman should be declared out in this case.
qpeedore
SOTM Winner - July 2014
- The day's play (ODI) is rained out. But the ground does have excellent drainage and an hour after play is called off, the two captains approach you and your colleagues (including the match referee). They propose a T20 night game, "so as to not let the fans down." They state that both teams are willing to play and that they would like to reward the fans who have stuck with them all day. What do you say? (This one is extremely tricky and doesn't have a right or wrong answer!)
Like I said, there isn't a right or wrong answer either way. But If I, as the umpire, was asked to do an exhibition match, first off I would have a conversation with both captains and the match referee about the real reason behind the game. I would want the referee to look at some of the betting stats, just to ensure that there isn't any sort of underhanded things going on. I would want the TV producer in on the conversation as well, to see if the game would be televised or not. For me, an untelevised, unreported exhibition match is good to go. But it isn't granted any status. It would essentially be a nets game.
- A batsman is running toward your end. He dives, but in the process his bat slips out of his hands and hits the stumps, dislodging the bails. By the time a stump has been pulled out of the ground, the batsman is well in, still with the momentum of his dive. The fielders appeal for obstruction. Your call? (This one is weird...by a literal reading of the current Laws that is.)
Technically the batsman is not out if you decide that the bat did actually slip and he didn't actually throw his bat at the stumps. But also technically, he can do just that. The current Laws for obstruction only mention the ball. So even if the batsman demolished the stumps before setting off for a run (non-striker, that is...the striker would be out hit wicket if he did this), he (again technically) can't be given out. Find me a Law that says otherwise. (This is not a challenge, it's just my reading of the current Laws.)
- There was a recent question on hitting the ball twice. Let's give this scenario. A batsman has just worn a delivery on his chest. Thankfully he is wearing a chest protector. The ball rebounds off of his chest and into his hitting arc. He promptly pulls the ball away. (Runs don't matter.) The fielders appeal. What is your call?
He's out. The Hit the Ball Twice Law clearly states that if the ball hits any part of the batsman's body and then the batsman willfully hits the ball again, he is to be given out. Unless he was protecting his wicket (unless it's obstruction). So he's out.
(NOTE: Whenever I say "he" in any post, it is for convenience. "He" refers to "he or she" at any time. One must recall that the first ever ODI double hundred goes to a woman, that women pioneered the overarm delivery, and that women have given more to cricket than "the gentleman's game" cares to recall.)
Like I said, there isn't a right or wrong answer either way. But If I, as the umpire, was asked to do an exhibition match, first off I would have a conversation with both captains and the match referee about the real reason behind the game. I would want the referee to look at some of the betting stats, just to ensure that there isn't any sort of underhanded things going on. I would want the TV producer in on the conversation as well, to see if the game would be televised or not. For me, an untelevised, unreported exhibition match is good to go. But it isn't granted any status. It would essentially be a nets game.
- A batsman is running toward your end. He dives, but in the process his bat slips out of his hands and hits the stumps, dislodging the bails. By the time a stump has been pulled out of the ground, the batsman is well in, still with the momentum of his dive. The fielders appeal for obstruction. Your call? (This one is weird...by a literal reading of the current Laws that is.)
Technically the batsman is not out if you decide that the bat did actually slip and he didn't actually throw his bat at the stumps. But also technically, he can do just that. The current Laws for obstruction only mention the ball. So even if the batsman demolished the stumps before setting off for a run (non-striker, that is...the striker would be out hit wicket if he did this), he (again technically) can't be given out. Find me a Law that says otherwise. (This is not a challenge, it's just my reading of the current Laws.)
- There was a recent question on hitting the ball twice. Let's give this scenario. A batsman has just worn a delivery on his chest. Thankfully he is wearing a chest protector. The ball rebounds off of his chest and into his hitting arc. He promptly pulls the ball away. (Runs don't matter.) The fielders appeal. What is your call?
He's out. The Hit the Ball Twice Law clearly states that if the ball hits any part of the batsman's body and then the batsman willfully hits the ball again, he is to be given out. Unless he was protecting his wicket (unless it's obstruction). So he's out.
(NOTE: Whenever I say "he" in any post, it is for convenience. "He" refers to "he or she" at any time. One must recall that the first ever ODI double hundred goes to a woman, that women pioneered the overarm delivery, and that women have given more to cricket than "the gentleman's game" cares to recall.)
Last edited:
The non-striker who was running towards the strikers end will be giving out obstructing the field.
He doesn't have the right to save the stumps of the batsman on strike.
Once David Hussey stopped the ball with his hands and he was given not out.
Can you give a video link or the match?
Tricky one. But as the commentator was saying, he was trying to protect himself... However, the other contrary to this would be the Stokes vs Starc obstructing the field dismissal, when he was given in a similar situation.
qpeedore
SOTM Winner - July 2014
These things would always come up, but you have to remember that obstruction is about the opinion of the umpires. Not the players or commentators or fans.
qpeedore
SOTM Winner - July 2014
I've said it before, and I'm saying it again. I dot like that the TV umpire is on the mic for the broadcast. Let him make his decision in silence. It was actually much better when the commentators talked rather than the umpire.
qpeedore
SOTM Winner - July 2014
But he's not the one making the decision. If I have to hear "rock and roll it" one more time I will go crazy.
Sherlock Holmes
PlanetCricket's Sherlock Holmes
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
well it all depends on how people take it
out of the cricket watch population majority would have liked this tv umpire talk thingy and that is the reason it is still there.
you cant do anything about it
it will stay as majority enjoys it
it is same like a few people enjoying only test cricket feel that t20 is degrading the gentlemen's original game.
but t20 is gonna stay and it brings more to the table for organiser, broadcaster, fans, players, boards, etc in 2020 than test
