22 Feb 2007 22:51:26
max.it
scoring question


During his run up.
The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
The batsman isout of his ground and run out.

What will be the entry in the score book ?

max.it


22 Feb 2007 15:08:37
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> During his run up.
> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>
> What will be the entry in the score book ?
>
> max.it

not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law 24.

4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal No
ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the procedure
stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action against
the bowler and reporting shall not apply.



22 Feb 2007 23:16:13
max.it
Re: scoring question

-On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > During his run up.
- > The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- >
- > What will be the entry in the score book ?
- >
- > max.it
-
-not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law 24.
-
-4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
-If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
-entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal No
-ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the procedure
-stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
against
-the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
-

Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he is
stealing a run ?

max.it


22 Feb 2007 23:21:47
max.it
Re: scoring question

--On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
-- > During his run up.
-- > The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
-- > The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
-- >
-- > What will be the entry in the score book ?
-- >
-- > max.it
--
--not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law
24.
--
--4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
--If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
--entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal No
--ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the procedure
--stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
-against
--the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
--
-
-Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he is
-stealing a run ?
-
-max.it


Or maybe you are reading too much into my question.
Why can't the striker be run out from a no ball ?

max.it


22 Feb 2007 15:23:23
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> During his run up.
> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> ->
> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law 24.
> -
> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal No
> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the procedure
> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> against
> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> -
>
> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he is
> stealing a run ?
>
> max.it

;-)

Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a run
or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out, especially
in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the bowler
would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the non-strikers
end (before entering his delivery stride).

If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with no
runs scored.



22 Feb 2007 23:27:06
max.it
Re: scoring question

-On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -> During his run up.
- > -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- > ->
- > -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
- > ->
- > -> max.it
- > -
- > -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law
24.
- > -
- > -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
- > -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
- > -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal
No
- > -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
procedure
- > -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
- > against
- > -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
- > -
- >
- > Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he
is
- > stealing a run ?
- >
- > max.it
-
-;-)
-
-Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
run
-or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out, especially
-in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
-where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
bowler
-would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the non-strikers
-end (before entering his delivery stride).
-
-If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with no
-runs scored.
-

with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
myself and you're baffling me more.
Back to the score book entry.

max.it


22 Feb 2007 15:27:57
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 22, 11:21 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> --On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> --> During his run up.
> --> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> --> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -->
> --> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -->
> --> max.it
> --
> --not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law
> 24.
> --
> --4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> --If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> --entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal No
> --ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the procedure
> --stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> -against
> --the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> --
> -
> -Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he is
> -stealing a run ?
> -
> -max.it
>
> Or maybe you are reading too much into my question.
> Why can't the striker be run out from a no ball ?

How would you tell the difference between the bowler deliberately
chucking a delivery and throwing to get a run out? There is nothing
in the laws as far as I know to say how far back the bowler is allowed
to start his delivery stride.



22 Feb 2007 15:34:42
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -> During his run up.
> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -> ->
> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -> ->
> -> -> max.it
> -> -
> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law
> 24.
> -> -
> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal
> No
> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
> procedure
> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> -> against
> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> -> -
> ->
> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he
> is
> -> stealing a run ?
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -;-)
> -
> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
> run
> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out, especially
> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
> bowler
> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the non-strikers
> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
> -
> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with no
> -runs scored.
> -
>
> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
> myself and you're baffling me more.
> Back to the score book entry.
>
> max.it

There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as the
chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
would just add a footnote explaining what happened.




23 Feb 2007 00:25:41
max.it
Re: scoring question

-On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -> -> During his run up.
- > -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- > -> ->
- > -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
- > -> ->
- > -> -> max.it
- > -> -
- > -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of
law
- > 24.
- > -> -
- > -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
- > -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
- > -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and
signal
- > No
- > -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
- > procedure
- > -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
- > -> against
- > -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
- > -> -
- > ->
- > -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because
he
- > is
- > -> stealing a run ?
- > ->
- > -> max.it
- > -
- > -;-)
- > -
- > -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
- > run
- > -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
especially
- > -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
- > -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
- > bowler
- > -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
non-strikers
- > -end (before entering his delivery stride).
- > -
- > -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with
no
- > -runs scored.
- > -
- >
- > with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
- > myself and you're baffling me more.
- > Back to the score book entry.
- >
- > max.it
-
-There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as
the
-chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
-would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
-
That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like scoring
cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy chair
cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......

I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and the no
ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)

By the time that question came up, our scorer had left the building,
and no less than two ecc international umpires, and four inter pros,
were standing looking dumb and confessing total ignorance........
I said nothing, but I reckon if the numbers don't add up, then the
scorer should explain the reason why........stapler and note pad ?

max.it


23 Feb 2007 00:55:27
max.it
Re: scoring question

-On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -> During his run up.
- > -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- > ->
- > -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
- > ->
- > -> max.it
- > -
- > -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law
24.
- > -
- > -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
- > -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
- > -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal
No
- > -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
procedure
- > -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
- > against
- > -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
- > -
- >
- > Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he
is
- > stealing a run ?
- >
- > max.it
-
-;-)
-
-Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
run
-or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out, especially
-in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
-where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
bowler
-would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the non-strikers
-end (before entering his delivery stride).
-
-If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with no
-runs scored.
-

The example given to me was Michael Holding, he run about 40 yards,
and the batman has only to run 22.......I'm starting to remember the
question, I think.

max.it



23 Feb 2007 01:30:23
Marco
Re: scoring question

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:51:26 GMT, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:

>
>During his run up.
>The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
>The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>
>What will be the entry in the score book ?
>
>max.it

No ball. Not counted as one of the over.


23 Feb 2007 01:31:48
Marco
Re: scoring question

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:30:23 +0000, Marco <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:51:26 GMT, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>
>>
>>During his run up.
>>The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
>>The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>>
>>What will be the entry in the score book ?
>>
>>max.it
>
>No ball. Not counted as one of the over.

PS I think it's different if the bowler is in
his delivery stride; then it's a legit run-out.


22 Feb 2007 23:35:42
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 1:31 am, Marco <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:30:23 +0000, Marco <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:51:26 GMT, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>
> >>During his run up.
> >>The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> >>The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>
> >>What will be the entry in the score book ?
>
> >>max.it
>
> >No ball. Not counted as one of the over.
>
> PS I think it's different if the bowler is in
> his delivery stride; then it's a legit run-out.

wouldn't have thought so, if it is in his delivery stride it would be
chucking and a no ball (i.e. the batsman would have been bowled by a
no ball and so not out). Note that the bowler can't run the non-
striker out either once he has entered his delivery stride.



22 Feb 2007 23:50:00
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 12:25 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -> -> During his run up.
> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -> -> ->
> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -> -> ->
> -> -> -> max.it
> -> -> -
> -> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of
> law
> -> 24.
> -> -> -
> -> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> -> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> -> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and
> signal
> -> No
> -> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
> -> procedure
> -> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> -> -> against
> -> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> -> -> -
> -> ->
> -> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because
> he
> -> is
> -> -> stealing a run ?
> -> ->
> -> -> max.it
> -> -
> -> -;-)
> -> -
> -> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
> -> run
> -> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
> especially
> -> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
> -> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
> -> bowler
> -> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
> non-strikers
> -> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
> -> -
> -> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with
> no
> -> -runs scored.
> -> -
> ->
> -> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
> -> myself and you're baffling me more.
> -> Back to the score book entry.
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as
> the
> -chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
> -would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
> -
> That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like scoring
> cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy chair
> cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......

I loathe scoring, would rather umpire and I don't really like doing
that either.

> I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and the no
> ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)

I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that there
is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a dead
ball as soon as the batsmen cross. The striker is alowed to advance
as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there is no
way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.

If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball was not
delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law 24.4
seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according to law
24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in which
case it was a legitimate delivery. In 42.16 I think it refers to an
attempt to run the non-striker out.

> By the time that question came up, our scorer had left the building,
> and no less than two ecc international umpires, and four inter pros,
> were standing looking dumb and confessing total ignorance........

I knew the bowler wasn't allowed to try and run the striker out in
this way, but had to check the laws to know the fine details. The
reason they didn't know what to do is because the question does not
make sense.

> I said nothing, but I reckon if the numbers don't add up, then the
> scorer should explain the reason why........stapler and note pad ?
>
> max.it




23 Feb 2007 08:03:47
max.it
Re: scoring question

-On Feb 23, 1:31 am, Marco <[email protected] > wrote:
- > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:30:23 +0000, Marco <[email protected]>
- > wrote:
- >
- > >On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:51:26 GMT, [email protected] (max.it)
wrote:
- >
- > >>During his run up.
- > >>The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > >>The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- >
- > >>What will be the entry in the score book ?
- >
- > >>max.it
- >
- > >No ball. Not counted as one of the over.
- >
- > PS I think it's different if the bowler is in
- > his delivery stride; then it's a legit run-out.
-
-wouldn't have thought so, if it is in his delivery stride it would be
-chucking and a no ball (i.e. the batsman would have been bowled by a
-no ball and so not out). Note that the bowler can't run the non-
-striker out either once he has entered his delivery stride.
-

The bowler can attempt to run out the batsman before his delivery
stride. If the bowler does this the umpire will call and signal no
ball.
If the ball hits the stumps and the batsman is out of his ground, then
the batsman can be given out on appeal.

The ball doesn't count, so a wicket has fallen without a ball being
bowled.

max.it


23 Feb 2007 00:56:44
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 8:03 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -On Feb 23, 1:31 am, Marco <[email protected]> wrote:
> -> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:30:23 +0000, Marco <[email protected]>-> wrote:
>
> ->
> -> >On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:51:26 GMT, [email protected] (max.it)
> wrote:
> ->
> -> >>During his run up.
> -> >>The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> >>The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> ->
> -> >>What will be the entry in the score book ?
> ->
> -> >>max.it
> ->
> -> >No ball. Not counted as one of the over.
> ->
> -> PS I think it's different if the bowler is in
> -> his delivery stride; then it's a legit run-out.
> -
> -wouldn't have thought so, if it is in his delivery stride it would be
> -chucking and a no ball (i.e. the batsman would have been bowled by a
> -no ball and so not out). Note that the bowler can't run the non-
> -striker out either once he has entered his delivery stride.
> -
>
> The bowler can attempt to run out the batsman before his delivery
> stride. If the bowler does this the umpire will call and signal no
> ball.

If by "batsman" you mean the striker, it is only a no ball if the
bowler attempts to "run out" the striker if he is not attempting to
steal a run. The wording of the laws does seem to need redrafting,
even if this situation is unlikely ever to actually occur!

If you mean the non-striker, it is not a no ball under any
circumstances.

> If the ball hits the stumps and the batsman is out of his ground, then
> the batsman can be given out on appeal.
>
> The ball doesn't count, so a wicket has fallen without a ball being
> bowled.

this would also be the case if either batsmen were run out off a no-
ball by a fielder, which is far more likely.

> max.it




23 Feb 2007 01:01:17
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 12:55 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -> During his run up.
> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -> ->
> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -> ->
> -> -> max.it
> -> -
> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of law
> 24.
> -> -
> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal
> No
> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
> procedure
> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> -> against
> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> -> -
> ->
> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because he
> is
> -> stealing a run ?
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -;-)
> -
> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
> run
> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out, especially
> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
> bowler
> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the non-strikers
> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
> -
> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with no
> -runs scored.
> -
>
> The example given to me was Michael Holding, he run about 40 yards,
> and the batman has only to run 22.......I'm starting to remember the
> question, I think.

That doesn't really matter as it is called dead ball as soon as the
batsmen cross, so you can't score a run that way anyhow (if I was
umpiring, I'd warn the batsmen about wasting time as well ;-)

Of course if it were Michael Holding coming in to bowl, directly
towards him would be the last direction I'd be running!



23 Feb 2007 09:05:02
David North
Re: scoring question

"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> -On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -> -> During his run up.
> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -> -> ->
> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -> -> ->
> -> -> -> max.it
> -> -> -
> -> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of
> law
> -> 24.
> -> -> -
> -> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> -> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> -> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and
> signal
> -> No
> -> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
> -> procedure
> -> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> -> -> against
> -> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> -> -> -
> -> ->
> -> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because
> he
> -> is
> -> -> stealing a run ?
> -> ->
> -> -> max.it
> -> -
> -> -;-)
> -> -
> -> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
> -> run
> -> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
> especially
> -> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
> -> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
> -> bowler
> -> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
> non-strikers
> -> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
> -> -
> -> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with
> no
> -> -runs scored.
> -> -
> ->
> -> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
> -> myself and you're baffling me more.
> -> Back to the score book entry.
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as
> the
> -chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
> -would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
> -
> That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like scoring
> cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy chair
> cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......
>
> I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and the no
> ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)

I can't see any way that the batsman can be out. If he's stealing a run,
it's a dead ball, 5 penalty runs and a report, but only if the batsmen cross
and the bowler does not attempt to run either of them out. Once the bowler
throws at the striker's end, it's just a no-ball, whatever the batsmen were
doing.
--
David North




23 Feb 2007 01:13:31
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 8:56 am, "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:03 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>
>
>
> > -On Feb 23, 1:31 am, Marco <[email protected]> wrote:
> > -> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:30:23 +0000, Marco <[email protected]>-> wrote:
>
> > ->
> > -> >On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:51:26 GMT, [email protected] (max.it)
> > wrote:
> > ->
> > -> >>During his run up.
> > -> >>The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> > -> >>The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> > ->
> > -> >>What will be the entry in the score book ?
> > ->
> > -> >>max.it
> > ->
> > -> >No ball. Not counted as one of the over.
> > ->
> > -> PS I think it's different if the bowler is in
> > -> his delivery stride; then it's a legit run-out.
> > -
> > -wouldn't have thought so, if it is in his delivery stride it would be
> > -chucking and a no ball (i.e. the batsman would have been bowled by a
> > -no ball and so not out). Note that the bowler can't run the non-
> > -striker out either once he has entered his delivery stride.
> > -
>
> > The bowler can attempt to run out the batsman before his delivery
> > stride. If the bowler does this the umpire will call and signal no
> > ball.
>
> If by "batsman" you mean the striker, it is only a no ball if the
> bowler attempts to "run out" the striker if he is not attempting to
> steal a run. The wording of the laws does seem to need redrafting,
> even if this situation is unlikely ever to actually occur!

sorry, this is wrong, it is always a no ball if the bowler attempts to
run out the striker, the reference to law 42 in law 24 seems redundant
and confusing.

> If you mean the non-striker, it is not a no ball under any
> circumstances.

this stands, it is called dead ball if the bowler doesn't succeed, not
a no ball.

> > If the ball hits the stumps and the batsman is out of his ground, then
> > the batsman can be given out on appeal.
>
> > The ball doesn't count, so a wicket has fallen without a ball being
> > bowled.
>
> this would also be the case if either batsmen were run out off a no-
> ball by a fielder, which is far more likely.
>
> > max.it




23 Feb 2007 09:25:25
max.it
Re: scoring question


-I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that
there
-is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a dead
-ball as soon as the batsmen cross. The striker is alowed to advance
-as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there is no
-way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.
-
-If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball was not
-delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law 24.4
-seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according to law
-24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in which
-case it was a legitimate delivery. In 42.16 I think it refers to an
-attempt to run the non-striker out.
-
- > By the time that question came up, our scorer had left the
building,
- > and no less than two ecc international umpires, and four inter
pros,
- > were standing looking dumb and confessing total ignorance........
-
-I knew the bowler wasn't allowed to try and run the striker out in
-this way, but had to check the laws to know the fine details. The
-reason they didn't know what to do is because the question does not
-make sense.
-
- > I said nothing, but I reckon if the numbers don't add up, then the
- > scorer should explain the reason why........stapler and note pad ?
- >
- > max.it
-
-

the original question:

During his run up.
The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
The batsman is out of his ground and run out.

What will be the entry in the score book ?

Lets say the batsman is standing 3 yards out of his ground, and the
bowler runs him out with a throw, before he reaches his delivery
stride, that hits the stumps directly.

run out from a no ball.

max.it



23 Feb 2007 01:34:03
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 9:25 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that
> there
> -is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a dead
> -ball as soon as the batsmen cross. The striker is alowed to advance
> -as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there is no
> -way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.
> -
> -If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball was not
> -delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law 24.4
> -seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according to law
> -24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in which
> -case it was a legitimate delivery. In 42.16 I think it refers to an
> -attempt to run the non-striker out.
> -
> -> By the time that question came up, our scorer had left the
> building,
> -> and no less than two ecc international umpires, and four inter
> pros,
> -> were standing looking dumb and confessing total ignorance........
> -
> -I knew the bowler wasn't allowed to try and run the striker out in
> -this way, but had to check the laws to know the fine details. The
> -reason they didn't know what to do is because the question does not
> -make sense.
> -
> -> I said nothing, but I reckon if the numbers don't add up, then the
> -> scorer should explain the reason why........stapler and note pad ?
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -
>
> the original question:
>
> During his run up.
> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> The batsman is out of his ground and run out.
>
> What will be the entry in the score book ?
>
> Lets say the batsman is standing 3 yards out of his ground, and the
> bowler runs him out with a throw, before he reaches his delivery
> stride, that hits the stumps directly.
>
> run out from a no ball.
>
> max.it

No, he is not out. A call of "no ball" is used to indicate an unfair
delivery, so if it hit the stumps, he would have been bowled (rather
than run out) off an unfair delivery (i.e. a no ball), and so is not
out.

As I said earlier, how can you tell the difference between chucking
and a throw at the stumps?

Note also in this case, if the batsman is *standing* three yards out
of his ground, he can't be stealing a *run*.



23 Feb 2007 13:33:56
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 23, 12:25 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> -On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> -> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> -> -> -> During his run up.
>> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
>> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>> -> -> ->
>> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
>> -> -> -
>> -> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of
>> law
>> -> 24.
>> -> -> -
>> -> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
>> -> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
>> -> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and
>> signal
>> -> No
>> -> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
>> -> procedure
>> -> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
>> -> -> against
>> -> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
>> -> -> -
>> -> ->
>> -> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because
>> he
>> -> is
>> -> -> stealing a run ?
>> -> -
>> -> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
>> -> run
>> -> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
>> especially
>> -> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
>> -> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
>> -> bowler
>> -> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
>> non-strikers
>> -> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
>> -> -
>> -> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with
>> no
>> -> -runs scored.
>> -> -
>> ->
>> -> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
>> -> myself and you're baffling me more.
>> -> Back to the score book entry.
>> ->
>> -> max.it
>> -
>> -There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as
>> the
>> -chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
>> -would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
>> -
>> That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like scoring
>> cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy chair
>> cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......
>
> I loathe scoring, would rather umpire and I don't really like doing
> that either.
>
>> I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and the no
>> ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)
>
> I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that there
> is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a dead
> ball as soon as the batsmen cross.

Indeed, but maybe the batsmen don't know the law (quite likely) or are
banking on the umpire not knowing the law (less likely, but hardly
unthinkable).

> The striker is alowed to advance
> as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there is no
> way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.
>
> If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball was not
> delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law 24.4
> seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according to law
> 24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in which
> case it was a legitimate delivery.

The distinction is that under 24.4, the no-ball is the end of the story,
whereas under 24.2, the bowler must be cautioned, etc.

> In 42.16 I think it refers to an
> attempt to run the non-striker out.

An attempt to run either batsman out effectively nullifies 42.16, and the
umpire must then implement either 24.4 or 42.15.

There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers to
throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting to run out
the non-striker.

What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end before the
batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the stumps
at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker out of
his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15 are met, so
by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run out.

OTOH, what if the bowler throws at the the stumps at his own end before the
batsmen have crossed, in an attempt to run out the striker? In that case,
neither 24.4 nor 42.15 applies, so what happens?
--
David North




23 Feb 2007 13:37:20
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Of course if it were Michael Holding coming in to bowl, directly
> towards him would be the last direction I'd be running!

I guess the batsman in question must be Geoff Boycott, reckoning on playing
him from the other end. ;o)
--
David North




23 Feb 2007 13:45:00
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 23, 8:56 am, "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 8:03 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:

>> > The bowler can attempt to run out the batsman before his delivery
>> > stride. If the bowler does this the umpire will call and signal no
>> > ball.
>>
>> If by "batsman" you mean the striker, it is only a no ball if the
>> bowler attempts to "run out" the striker if he is not attempting to
>> steal a run. The wording of the laws does seem to need redrafting,
>> even if this situation is unlikely ever to actually occur!
>
> sorry, this is wrong, it is always a no ball if the bowler attempts to
> run out the striker, the reference to law 42 in law 24 seems redundant
> and confusing.

Agreed, since 24.4 applies regardless of 42.16, and 42.16 does not apply if
24.4 applies.
--
David North




23 Feb 2007 06:05:26
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 12:25 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> -On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> -> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> -> -> -> During his run up.
> >> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> >> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> >> -> -> ->
> >> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> >> -> -> -
> >> -> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of
> >> law
> >> -> 24.
> >> -> -> -
> >> -> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> >> -> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> >> -> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and
> >> signal
> >> -> No
> >> -> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
> >> -> procedure
> >> -> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> >> -> -> against
> >> -> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> >> -> -> -
> >> -> ->
> >> -> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because
> >> he
> >> -> is
> >> -> -> stealing a run ?
> >> -> -
> >> -> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
> >> -> run
> >> -> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
> >> especially
> >> -> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
> >> -> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
> >> -> bowler
> >> -> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
> >> non-strikers
> >> -> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
> >> -> -
> >> -> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with
> >> no
> >> -> -runs scored.
> >> -> -
> >> ->
> >> -> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
> >> -> myself and you're baffling me more.
> >> -> Back to the score book entry.
> >> ->
> >> -> max.it
> >> -
> >> -There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as
> >> the
> >> -chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
> >> -would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
> >> -
> >> That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like scoring
> >> cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy chair
> >> cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......
>
> > I loathe scoring, would rather umpire and I don't really like doing
> > that either.
>
> >> I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and the no
> >> ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)
>
> > I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that there
> > is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a dead
> > ball as soon as the batsmen cross.
>
> Indeed, but maybe the batsmen don't know the law (quite likely) or are
> banking on the umpire not knowing the law (less likely, but hardly
> unthinkable).
>
> > The striker is alowed to advance
> > as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there is no
> > way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.
>
> > If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball was not
> > delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law 24.4
> > seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according to law
> > 24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in which
> > case it was a legitimate delivery.
>
> The distinction is that under 24.4, the no-ball is the end of the story,
> whereas under 24.2, the bowler must be cautioned, etc.

True. The main problem with 24.4 is the reference to 42.16, which
doesn't seem to have any bearing on 24.4.

> > In 42.16 I think it refers to an
> > attempt to run the non-striker out.
>
> An attempt to run either batsman out effectively nullifies 42.16, and the
> umpire must then implement either 24.4 or 42.15.

The thing I was trying to get at was that I don't think the laws allow
the bowler to run the striker out before the delivery, simply because
the throw becomes the (illegal) delivery - hence the call of "no
ball". However, you are right the laws do say "attempt" - I have seen
bowlers "attempt" to run out the non-striker in his delivery stride on
several occasions (and seen them being annoyed at the ump for saying
"not out" ;-).

> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers to
> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting to run out
> the non-striker.

The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.

> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end before the
> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the stumps
> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker out of
> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15 are met, so
> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run out.

The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown for
42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
negate something that was unfair play at the time), so it would
require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
issue!

I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding. Not
sure who should face the next ball!

> OTOH, what if the bowler throws at the the stumps at his own end before the
> batsmen have crossed, in an attempt to run out the striker? In that case,
> neither 24.4 nor 42.15 applies, so what happens?

They are both out and the bowler is removed from attack for the
remainder of the game for obvious collusion in persecuting the poor
umpire! ;-)



24 Feb 2007 09:48:32
will s
Re: scoring question


"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> During his run up.
> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>
> What will be the entry in the score book ?
>
> max.it

1 run for a murali delivery



23 Feb 2007 23:17:12
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 12:25 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> >> -On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> >> -> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> >> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>> >> -> -> -> During his run up.
>> >> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
>> >> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>> >> -> -> ->
>> >> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
>> >> -> -> -
>> >> -> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of
>> >> law
>> >> -> 24.
>> >> -> -> -
>> >> -> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
>> >> -> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
>> >> -> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and
>> >> signal
>> >> -> No
>> >> -> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
>> >> -> procedure
>> >> -> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
>> >> -> -> against
>> >> -> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
>> >> -> -> -
>> >> -> ->
>> >> -> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because
>> >> he
>> >> -> is
>> >> -> -> stealing a run ?
>> >> -> -
>> >> -> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
>> >> -> run
>> >> -> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
>> >> especially
>> >> -> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
>> >> -> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
>> >> -> bowler
>> >> -> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
>> >> non-strikers
>> >> -> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
>> >> -> -
>> >> -> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with
>> >> no
>> >> -> -runs scored.
>> >> -> -
>> >> ->
>> >> -> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
>> >> -> myself and you're baffling me more.
>> >> -> Back to the score book entry.
>> >> -
>> >> -There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as
>> >> the
>> >> -chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
>> >> -would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
>> >> -
>> >> That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like scoring
>> >> cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy chair
>> >> cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......
>>
>> > I loathe scoring, would rather umpire and I don't really like doing
>> > that either.
>>
>> >> I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and the no
>> >> ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)
>>
>> > I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that there
>> > is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a dead
>> > ball as soon as the batsmen cross.
>>
>> Indeed, but maybe the batsmen don't know the law (quite likely) or are
>> banking on the umpire not knowing the law (less likely, but hardly
>> unthinkable).
>>
>> > The striker is alowed to advance
>> > as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there is no
>> > way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.
>>
>> > If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball was not
>> > delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law 24.4
>> > seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according to law
>> > 24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in which
>> > case it was a legitimate delivery.
>>
>> The distinction is that under 24.4, the no-ball is the end of the story,
>> whereas under 24.2, the bowler must be cautioned, etc.
>
> True. The main problem with 24.4 is the reference to 42.16, which
> doesn't seem to have any bearing on 24.4.
>
>> > In 42.16 I think it refers to an
>> > attempt to run the non-striker out.
>>
>> An attempt to run either batsman out effectively nullifies 42.16, and the
>> umpire must then implement either 24.4 or 42.15.
>
> The thing I was trying to get at was that I don't think the laws allow
> the bowler to run the striker out before the delivery, simply because
> the throw becomes the (illegal) delivery - hence the call of "no
> ball". However, you are right the laws do say "attempt" - I have seen
> bowlers "attempt" to run out the non-striker in his delivery stride on
> several occasions (and seen them being annoyed at the ump for saying
> "not out" ;-).
>
>> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers to
>> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting to run
>> out
>> the non-striker.
>
> The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.

I wasn't referring to the forward reference.

>> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end before the
>> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the
>> stumps
>> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker out of
>> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15 are met,
>> so
>> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run out.
>
> The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown for
> 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
> negate something that was unfair play at the time),

"Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the umpire shall
(i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any such
attempt."

As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is thrown before
the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be pointless, because
if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be "during
the bowler's run up".

> so it would
> require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
> issue!
>
> I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
> constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.

Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery stride",
surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?

While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a run-out
cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the bowler
had not entered his delivery stride.
--
David North




23 Feb 2007 23:25:38
David North
Re: scoring question

"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> During his run up.
> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>
> What will be the entry in the score book ?

IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think it's a no-ball
and the striker is run out.

Good question.
--
David North




23 Feb 2007 23:30:05
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> How would you tell the difference between the bowler deliberately
> chucking a delivery and throwing to get a run out? There is nothing
> in the laws as far as I know to say how far back the bowler is allowed
> to start his delivery stride.

Indeed. Clearly it is left to the umpire to judge which is which.
--
David North




23 Feb 2007 23:49:39
max.it
Re: scoring question

-"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
-news:[email protected]
- > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North"
<[email protected] >
- > wrote:
- >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
- >>
- >> news:[email protected]
- >>
- >>
- >>
- >> > On Feb 23, 12:25 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- >> >> -On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- >> >> -> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- >> >> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it)
wrote:
- >> >> -> -> -> During his run up.
- >> >> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- >> >> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- >> >> -> -> ->
- >> >> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
- >> >> -> -> -
- >> >> -> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out
because of
- >> >> law
- >> >> -> 24.
- >> >> -> -> -
- >> >> -> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
- >> >> -> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end
before
- >> >> -> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call
and
- >> >> signal
- >> >> -> No
- >> >> -> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However,
the
- >> >> -> procedure
- >> >> -> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning,
action
- >> >> -> -> against
- >> >> -> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
- >> >> -> -> -
- >> >> -> ->
- >> >> -> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground
because
- >> >> he
- >> >> -> is
- >> >> -> -> stealing a run ?
- >> >> -> -
- >> >> -> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is
stealing a
- >> >> -> run
- >> >> -> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
- >> >> especially
- >> >> -> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game
circumstances
- >> >> -> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also
the
- >> >> -> bowler
- >> >> -> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
- >> >> non-strikers
- >> >> -> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
- >> >> -> -
- >> >> -> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run
out, with
- >> >> no
- >> >> -> -runs scored.
- >> >> -> -
- >> >> ->
- >> >> -> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm
baffling
- >> >> -> myself and you're baffling me more.
- >> >> -> Back to the score book entry.
- >> >> -
- >> >> -There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a
problem as
- >> >> the
- >> >> -chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most
scorers
- >> >> -would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
- >> >> -
- >> >> That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like
scoring
- >> >> cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy
chair
- >> >> cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......
- >>
- >> > I loathe scoring, would rather umpire and I don't really like
doing
- >> > that either.
- >>
- >> >> I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and
the no
- >> >> ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)
- >>
- >> > I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that
there
- >> > is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a
dead
- >> > ball as soon as the batsmen cross.
- >>
- >> Indeed, but maybe the batsmen don't know the law (quite likely) or
are
- >> banking on the umpire not knowing the law (less likely, but hardly
- >> unthinkable).
- >>
- >> > The striker is alowed to advance
- >> > as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there
is no
- >> > way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.
- >>
- >> > If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball
was not
- >> > delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law
24.4
- >> > seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according
to law
- >> > 24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in
which
- >> > case it was a legitimate delivery.
- >>
- >> The distinction is that under 24.4, the no-ball is the end of the
story,
- >> whereas under 24.2, the bowler must be cautioned, etc.
- >
- > True. The main problem with 24.4 is the reference to 42.16, which
- > doesn't seem to have any bearing on 24.4.
- >
- >> > In 42.16 I think it refers to an
- >> > attempt to run the non-striker out.
- >>
- >> An attempt to run either batsman out effectively nullifies 42.16,
and the
- >> umpire must then implement either 24.4 or 42.15.
- >
- > The thing I was trying to get at was that I don't think the laws
allow
- > the bowler to run the striker out before the delivery, simply
because
- > the throw becomes the (illegal) delivery - hence the call of "no
- > ball". However, you are right the laws do say "attempt" - I have
seen
- > bowlers "attempt" to run out the non-striker in his delivery stride
on
- > several occasions (and seen them being annoyed at the ump for
saying
- > "not out" ;-).
- >
- >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers
to
- >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting
to run
- >> out
- >> the non-striker.
- >
- > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
-
-I wasn't referring to the forward reference.
-
- >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end
before the
- >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits
the
- >> stumps
- >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker
out of
- >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15
are met,
- >> so
- >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run
out.
- >
- > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown
for
- > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
- > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
-
-"Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the umpire
shall
-(i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any
such
-attempt."
-
-As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is thrown
before
-the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be pointless,
because
-if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be
"during
-the bowler's run up".
-
- > so it would
- > require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
- > issue!
- >
- > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
- > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
-
-Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery
stride",
-surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
-
-While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
run-out
-cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
bowler
-had not entered his delivery stride.
---
-David North
-
The bowler may have entered his delivery stride, but from behind the
umpire. The umpire may call no ball, because he can't see the bowler's
feet, and therefore can't be sure of a fair delivery. (thay's another
one or the scorers)
So the no ball might no be for the throw, and if for the throw, the
bowler (thrower) would perhaps deliver from wide of the wicket, to get
more stumps to throw at ? Then there is the back foot to consider.

Are you baffled yet?

max.it


24 Feb 2007 01:39:00
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]
>
> >> > On Feb 23, 12:25 am, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> >> -On Feb 22, 11:27 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> >> -> -On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> >> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> >> >> -> -> -> During his run up.
> >> >> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> >> >> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> >> >> -> -> ->
> >> >> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> >> >> -> -> -
> >> >> -> -> -not a valid question, the batsman would not be out because of
> >> >> law
> >> >> -> 24.
> >> >> -> -> -
> >> >> -> -> -4. Bowler throwing towards striker's end before delivery
> >> >> -> -> -If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker's end before
> >> >> -> -> -entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and
> >> >> signal
> >> >> -> No
> >> >> -> -> -ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the
> >> >> -> procedure
> >> >> -> -> -stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action
> >> >> -> -> against
> >> >> -> -> -the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
> >> >> -> -> -
> >> >> -> ->
> >> >> -> -> Maybe I should have said, striker is out of his ground because
> >> >> he
> >> >> -> is
> >> >> -> -> stealing a run ?
> >> >> -> -
> >> >> -> -Be rather difficult to determine whether the batsman is stealing a
> >> >> -> run
> >> >> -> -or charging the bowler, be a brave umpire to give it out,
> >> >> especially
> >> >> -> -in international cricket. I can't imagine the game circumstances
> >> >> -> -where it would be a good thing for the bastman to do! Also the
> >> >> -> bowler
> >> >> -> -would probably be better off breaking the stumps at the
> >> >> non-strikers
> >> >> -> -end (before entering his delivery stride).
> >> >> -> -
> >> >> -> -If the umpire did give it out it would be a wicket, run out, with
> >> >> no
> >> >> -> -runs scored.
> >> >> -> -
> >> >> ->
> >> >> -> with no delivery recorded ? My TS is in the van and I'm baffling
> >> >> -> myself and you're baffling me more.
> >> >> -> Back to the score book entry.
> >> >> -
> >> >> -There probably isn't a formal means to record it (not a problem as
> >> >> the
> >> >> -chances of it happening are basically nill), I expect most scorers
> >> >> -would just add a footnote explaining what happened.
> >> >> -
> >> >> That's what I would do if I was scoring. I never used to like scoring
> >> >> cricket matches, but I don't mind it now these days. The comfy chair
> >> >> cups of coffee, cigarettes, snacks.......
>
> >> > I loathe scoring, would rather umpire and I don't really like doing
> >> > that either.
>
> >> >> I'm still giving the batsman out (I reckon he was pinching) and the no
> >> >> ball for the throw (for the benefit of the scoring question)
>
> >> > I still think the question makes no sense. Law 42.16 means that there
> >> > is no advantage to stealing a run as the umpire must call it a dead
> >> > ball as soon as the batsmen cross.
>
> >> Indeed, but maybe the batsmen don't know the law (quite likely) or are
> >> banking on the umpire not knowing the law (less likely, but hardly
> >> unthinkable).
>
> >> > The striker is alowed to advance
> >> > as far down the pitch as he likes in playing his shot, so there is no
> >> > way to tell if he is stealing a run anyway.
>
> >> > If the batsman was run out, it can't be a no ball as the ball was not
> >> > delivered. Laws 42.16 and 24 seem rather badly drafted, law 24.4
> >> > seems irrelevant as the umpire can call it a no ball according to law
> >> > 24.2 (i.e. chucking) unless it was done with a straight arm, in which
> >> > case it was a legitimate delivery.
>
> >> The distinction is that under 24.4, the no-ball is the end of the story,
> >> whereas under 24.2, the bowler must be cautioned, etc.
>
> > True. The main problem with 24.4 is the reference to 42.16, which
> > doesn't seem to have any bearing on 24.4.
>
> >> > In 42.16 I think it refers to an
> >> > attempt to run the non-striker out.
>
> >> An attempt to run either batsman out effectively nullifies 42.16, and the
> >> umpire must then implement either 24.4 or 42.15.
>
> > The thing I was trying to get at was that I don't think the laws allow
> > the bowler to run the striker out before the delivery, simply because
> > the throw becomes the (illegal) delivery - hence the call of "no
> > ball". However, you are right the laws do say "attempt" - I have seen
> > bowlers "attempt" to run out the non-striker in his delivery stride on
> > several occasions (and seen them being annoyed at the ump for saying
> > "not out" ;-).
>
> >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers to
> >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting to run
> >> out
> >> the non-striker.
>
> > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
>
> I wasn't referring to the forward reference.

Ah, in that case I don't understand why it is an anomaly. I can't see
any link in the laws between 24.4 and 42.15, but there is between 24.4
and 42.16.

> >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end before the
> >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the
> >> stumps
> >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker out of
> >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15 are met,
> >> so
> >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run out.
>
> > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown for
> > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
> > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
>
> "Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the umpire shall
> (i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any such
> attempt."
>
> As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is thrown before
> the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be pointless, because
> if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be "during
> the bowler's run up".

I think that is a fair reading of the law, however the law doesn't
seem consistent. It says that it is unfair for the batmen to try to
steal a run, so why should they gain an advantage from unfair play
just because the subsequently bowler tries to run them out? It is
understandable that the laws are a bit vague here as I can't see a
match situation where the striker would gain advantage. If it were up
to me, I'd not permit the bowler to try and run them out and leave the
rest of the law as it is.

> > so it would
> > require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
> > issue!
>
> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
>
> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery stride",
> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?

In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker can't
be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to run
out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?

What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?

> While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a run-out
> cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the bowler
> had not entered his delivery stride.

True, but "no-ball" in all other contexts refers to an illegal
delivery. It seems to me that the intention of the law is that the
ball is to be interpreted as an unfair delivery, so if it hits the
stumps, it would be bowled and not out because it is a no-ball.

For me, the central issue is why is the bowler penalised, and why is
it called a no-ball?

As I said, I don't think the laws as they stand adequately cover this
issue.



24 Feb 2007 14:23:51
max.it
Re: scoring question

-"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
-news:[email protected]
- >
- > During his run up.
- > The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- >
- > What will be the entry in the score book ?
-
-IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think it's a
no-ball
-and the striker is run out.
-
-Good question.
---
-David North
-

It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book varies
depending on the scorer.

max.it



24 Feb 2007 06:49:46
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> -news:[email protected]
> ->
> -> During his run up.
> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> ->
> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -
> -IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think it's a
> no-ball
> -and the striker is run out.
> -
> -Good question.
> ---
> -David North
> -
>
> It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book varies
> depending on the scorer.
>
> max.it

Do you have a firm reference for that (the laws themselves are
unclear)? If so, I'd be interested to know why it is a no-ball.



24 Feb 2007 15:36:55
max.it
Re: scoring question

-On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
- >
- > -news:[email protected]
- > ->
- > -> During his run up.
- > -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- > ->
- > -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
- > -
- > -IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think it's a
- > no-ball
- > -and the striker is run out.
- > -
- > -Good question.
- > ---
- > -David North
- > -
- >
- > It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book
varies
- > depending on the scorer.
- >
- > max.it
-
-Do you have a firm reference for that (the laws themselves are
-unclear)? If so, I'd be interested to know why it is a no-ball.
-

It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the batsman is
expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for a
throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and not a
delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not apply.
The no ball is treated just the same as any other no ball, it might
end up out of the ground, or it may run someone out.
Saying this, the batsman is gaining an advantage by standing out of
his ground to begin with, so it is fair that the bowler should have
the chance to run out the batsman. 24.4 deals with the attempt to run
out the striker by the bowler from "that type" of no ball.

My mate does a lot of scoring and he reckons that the entry to the
score book would have to have a circle a w and r, then it would be
clear to the analyst what had happened.
.......sure it would ;)

max.it



24 Feb 2007 07:47:38
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 24, 3:36 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:-> -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> ->
> -> -news:[email protected]
> -> ->
> -> -> During his run up.
> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -> ->
> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -> -
> -> -IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think it's a
> -> no-ball
> -> -and the striker is run out.
> -> -
> -> -Good question.
> -> ---
> -> -David North
> -> -
> ->
> -> It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book
> varies
> -> depending on the scorer.
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -Do you have a firm reference for that (the laws themselves are
> -unclear)? If so, I'd be interested to know why it is a no-ball.
> -
>
> It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3.

In that case the batsman can't be run out as it would be bowled and
not out if it hot the wicket.

>It's fair that if the batsman is
> expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for a
> throwing the ball.

Not if he is stealing a run and the bowler is trying to run him out.

>The fact that this is a run out attempt and not a
> delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not apply.

if it is a run out attempt, it is not a delivery, so it can't be an
unfair delivery and so shouldn't be a no-ball.

> The no ball is treated just the same as any other no ball, it might
> end up out of the ground, or it may run someone out.

you can't be bowled by a no ball. If it is a no-ball, it is an unfair
delivery, and you can't be bowled from a no-ball.

> Saying this, the batsman is gaining an advantage by standing out of
> his ground to begin with, so it is fair that the bowler should have
> the chance to run out the batsman.

not really, there is a difference between standing out of your ground
(perfectly fair, there would be no stumpings if that were the case)
and trying to steal a run.

>24.4 deals with the attempt to run
> out the striker by the bowler from "that type" of no ball.

I can't see why the bowler should be penalised for a bit of fielding.
The fact that it is called a no-ball strongly implies it is considered
an unfair delivery.

The law is ambiguous, it is a good question for that very reason.

> My mate does a lot of scoring and he reckons that the entry to the
> score book would have to have a circle a w and r, then it would be
> clear to the analyst what had happened.
> .......sure it would ;)

:-)




24 Feb 2007 16:16:39
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>> > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers to
>> >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting to
>> >> run
>> >> out
>> >> the non-striker.
>>
>> > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to the forward reference.
>
> Ah, in that case I don't understand why it is an anomaly. I can't see
> any link in the laws between 24.4 and 42.15, but there is between 24.4
> and 42.16.

What I meant was that the two laws between them don't cover all
possibilites, as I went on to explain, as one specifies the non-striker,
while the other specifies the striker's wicket.

>> >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end before
>> >> the
>> >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the
>> >> stumps
>> >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker out
>> >> of
>> >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15 are
>> >> met,
>> >> so
>> >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run out.
>>
>> > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown for
>> > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
>> > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
>>
>> "Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the umpire
>> shall
>> (i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any such
>> attempt."
>>
>> As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is thrown
>> before
>> the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be pointless,
>> because
>> if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be
>> "during
>> the bowler's run up".
>
> I think that is a fair reading of the law, however the law doesn't
> seem consistent. It says that it is unfair for the batmen to try to
> steal a run, so why should they gain an advantage from unfair play
> just because the subsequently bowler tries to run them out?

Possibly because it gives the bowler the chance to gamble on a possible
run-out against the cost of a run or two and the forfeit of the 5-run
penalty. If dead ball was called as soon as the batsmen started to run, he
would not have this opportunity. Also, if it to be penalised as soon as the
batsmen started to run, where would you draw the line? Would you apply the
penalty if the non-striker stepped out of his ground before the bowler
entered his delivery stride?

> It is
> understandable that the laws are a bit vague here as I can't see a
> match situation where the striker would gain advantage. If it were up
> to me, I'd not permit the bowler to try and run them out and leave the
> rest of the law as it is.

I think it is right that the bowler should be able to run out the
non-striker at the bowler's end to prevent him from backing up too soon.

>> > so it would
>> > require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
>> > issue!
>>
>> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
>> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
>>
>> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery stride",
>> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
>
> In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker can't
> be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to run
> out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?

I see your point. The run penalty seems wrong, but it must be right that
dismissals other than run-out are prevented, otherwise it would effectively
legitimise throwing.

> What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?

Nothing different to what would happen off any other no-ball.

>> While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
>> run-out
>> cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the bowler
>> had not entered his delivery stride.
>
> True, but "no-ball" in all other contexts refers to an illegal
> delivery.

What about too many fielders behind square on the leg side, fielders
encroaching on the pitch and the wicket-keeper moving in front of the wicket
illegally? All no-ball, but nothing to do with the delivery.

> It seems to me that the intention of the law is that the
> ball is to be interpreted as an unfair delivery, so if it hits the
> stumps, it would be bowled and not out because it is a no-ball.
>
> For me, the central issue is why is the bowler penalised, and why is
> it called a no-ball?
>
> As I said, I don't think the laws as they stand adequately cover this
> issue.

There is certainly room for improvement.
--
David North




24 Feb 2007 16:32:47
David North
Re: scoring question

"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> -news:[email protected]
> ->> >> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it)
> wrote:
> ->> >> -> -> -> During his run up.
> ->> >> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> ->> >> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> ->> >> -> -> ->
> ->> >> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
> run-out
> -cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
> bowler
> -had not entered his delivery stride.

> The bowler may have entered his delivery stride, but from behind the
> umpire. The umpire may call no ball, because he can't see the bowler's
> feet, and therefore can't be sure of a fair delivery. (thay's another
> one or the scorers)

If the bowler threw at the striker's wicket from behind the umpire, I would
have thought that the square-leg umpire should see it first and call no-ball
under 24.4 before the bowler's end umpire gets a chance to call under 24.5.

> So the no ball might no be for the throw, and if for the throw, the
> bowler (thrower) would perhaps deliver from wide of the wicket, to get
> more stumps to throw at ? Then there is the back foot to consider.

If the no-ball is for the throw under Law 24.4, the back foot is irrelevant,
because the laws regarding position of the feet only apply in the delivery
stride.
--
David North




24 Feb 2007 08:42:11
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 24, 4:16 pm, "David North" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]
> >> > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers to
> >> >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting to
> >> >> run
> >> >> out
> >> >> the non-striker.
>
> >> > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
>
> >> I wasn't referring to the forward reference.
>
> > Ah, in that case I don't understand why it is an anomaly. I can't see
> > any link in the laws between 24.4 and 42.15, but there is between 24.4
> > and 42.16.
>
> What I meant was that the two laws between them don't cover all
> possibilites, as I went on to explain, as one specifies the non-striker,
> while the other specifies the striker's wicket.

Ah. Part of the problem I have with all this is that I can see no
good reason for the striker to twy and steal a run, for the non-
striker it is a bit different as all he has to do is run.

> >> >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end before
> >> >> the
> >> >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the
> >> >> stumps
> >> >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker out
> >> >> of
> >> >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15 are
> >> >> met,
> >> >> so
> >> >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run out.
>
> >> > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown for
> >> > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
> >> > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
>
> >> "Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the umpire
> >> shall
> >> (i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any such
> >> attempt."
>
> >> As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is thrown
> >> before
> >> the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be pointless,
> >> because
> >> if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be
> >> "during
> >> the bowler's run up".
>
> > I think that is a fair reading of the law, however the law doesn't
> > seem consistent. It says that it is unfair for the batmen to try to
> > steal a run, so why should they gain an advantage from unfair play
> > just because the subsequently bowler tries to run them out?
>
> Possibly because it gives the bowler the chance to gamble on a possible
> run-out against the cost of a run or two and the forfeit of the 5-run
> penalty. If dead ball was called as soon as the batsmen started to run, he
> would not have this opportunity. Also, if it to be penalised as soon as the
> batsmen started to run, where would you draw the line? Would you apply the
> penalty if the non-striker stepped out of his ground before the bowler
> entered his delivery stride?

For me they key point is that there is no way of really defining an
attempt to steal a run rather than just charging the bowler, without
reading the batsmans mind. Crossing before the ball was delivered
would be as good a criterion as any (note that if the striker did
this, he'd be very vunerable to a lob).

The point remains, if it is fielding (an attempted run out), why
should it be penalised by a no-ball?

> > It is
> > understandable that the laws are a bit vague here as I can't see a
> > match situation where the striker would gain advantage. If it were up
> > to me, I'd not permit the bowler to try and run them out and leave the
> > rest of the law as it is.
>
> I think it is right that the bowler should be able to run out the
> non-striker at the bowler's end to prevent him from backing up too soon.

absolutely, I just meant that he shouldn't be able to try and run out
the striker, becuase it makes no sense.

> >> > so it would
> >> > require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
> >> > issue!
>
> >> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
> >> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
>
> >> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery stride",
> >> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
>
> > In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker can't
> > be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to run
> > out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?
>
> I see your point. The run penalty seems wrong, but it must be right that
> dismissals other than run-out are prevented, otherwise it would effectively
> legitimise throwing.

The thing is that if it is a delivery (if an unfair one) the striker
can't be run out directly as the ball has not touched a fielder
(including the bowler) since leaving the bowlers hand (law 38.2(b)).
If it isn't a delivery, there shouldn't be a penalty.

> > What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?
>
> Nothing different to what would happen off any other no-ball.

In which case it can't be run out because of 38.2.

> >> While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
> >> run-out
> >> cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the bowler
> >> had not entered his delivery stride.
>
> > True, but "no-ball" in all other contexts refers to an illegal
> > delivery.
>
> What about too many fielders behind square on the leg side, fielders
> encroaching on the pitch and the wicket-keeper moving in front of the wicket
> illegally? All no-ball, but nothing to do with the delivery.

I'd say they make the delivery unfair because it was delivered in a
circumstance made illegal by the relevant laws. They are still to do
with a delivery (i.e. a ball of the over (unlike a dead ball) that the
striker has an opportunity to score off) rather than a bit of
fielding.

> > It seems to me that the intention of the law is that the
> > ball is to be interpreted as an unfair delivery, so if it hits the
> > stumps, it would be bowled and not out because it is a no-ball.
>
> > For me, the central issue is why is the bowler penalised, and why is
> > it called a no-ball?
>
> > As I said, I don't think the laws as they stand adequately cover this
> > issue.
>
> There is certainly room for improvement.

max.it has found a real treasure with this one! ;-)



24 Feb 2007 16:50:40
David North
Re: scoring question

"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> -On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> ->
> -> -news:[email protected]
> -> ->
> -> -> During his run up.
> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -> ->
> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -> -
> -> -IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think it's a
> -> no-ball
> -> -and the striker is run out.
> -> -
> -> -Good question.
> -> ---
> -> -David North
> -> -
> ->
> -> It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book
> varies
> -> depending on the scorer.
> ->
> -> max.it
> -
> -Do you have a firm reference for that (the laws themselves are
> -unclear)? If so, I'd be interested to know why it is a no-ball.
> -
>
> It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the batsman is
> expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for a
> throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and not a
> delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not apply.

You obviously see 24.4 as a special case of 24.2/3. I see 24.2/3 as applying
only to deliveries, not non-deliveries.

--
David North




24 Feb 2007 08:53:37
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "David North" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> "max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > -news:[email protected]
> > ->> >> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it)
> > wrote:
> > ->> >> -> -> -> During his run up.
> > ->> >> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> > ->> >> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> > ->> >> -> -> ->
> > ->> >> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> > -While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
> > run-out
> > -cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
> > bowler
> > -had not entered his delivery stride.
> > The bowler may have entered his delivery stride, but from behind the
> > umpire. The umpire may call no ball, because he can't see the bowler's
> > feet, and therefore can't be sure of a fair delivery. (thay's another
> > one or the scorers)
>
> If the bowler threw at the striker's wicket from behind the umpire, I would
> have thought that the square-leg umpire should see it first and call no-ball
> under 24.4 before the bowler's end umpire gets a chance to call under 24.5.
>
> > So the no ball might no be for the throw, and if for the throw, the
> > bowler (thrower) would perhaps deliver from wide of the wicket, to get
> > more stumps to throw at ? Then there is the back foot to consider.
>
> If the no-ball is for the throw under Law 24.4, the back foot is irrelevant,
> because the laws regarding position of the feet only apply in the delivery
> stride.

But the delivery stride can be done from behind the umpire, as law 9.4
says that the return creases shall be considered as unlimited in
length, so "before the delivery stride" is a pretty difficult thing to
define, how can you tell the difference between a throw to run out the
batsman and a thrown delivery without making arbitrary assumptions
about what a normal action is for the bowler (or telepathy).



24 Feb 2007 17:09:07
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 24, 4:16 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:[email protected]
>> >> > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North"
>> >> > <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> run
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> the non-striker.
>>
>> >> > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
>>
>> >> I wasn't referring to the forward reference.
>>
>> > Ah, in that case I don't understand why it is an anomaly. I can't see
>> > any link in the laws between 24.4 and 42.15, but there is between 24.4
>> > and 42.16.
>>
>> What I meant was that the two laws between them don't cover all
>> possibilites, as I went on to explain, as one specifies the non-striker,
>> while the other specifies the striker's wicket.
>
> Ah. Part of the problem I have with all this is that I can see no
> good reason for the striker to twy and steal a run, for the non-
> striker it is a bit different as all he has to do is run.

If the batsmen know the law, I would agree.

>> >> >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end
>> >> >> before
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the
>> >> >> stumps
>> >> >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> met,
>> >> >> so
>> >> >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run
>> >> >> out.
>>
>> >> > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown
>> >> > for
>> >> > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
>> >> > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
>>
>> >> "Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the umpire
>> >> shall
>> >> (i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any such
>> >> attempt."
>>
>> >> As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is thrown
>> >> before
>> >> the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be pointless,
>> >> because
>> >> if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be
>> >> "during
>> >> the bowler's run up".
>>
>> > I think that is a fair reading of the law, however the law doesn't
>> > seem consistent. It says that it is unfair for the batmen to try to
>> > steal a run, so why should they gain an advantage from unfair play
>> > just because the subsequently bowler tries to run them out?
>>
>> Possibly because it gives the bowler the chance to gamble on a possible
>> run-out against the cost of a run or two and the forfeit of the 5-run
>> penalty. If dead ball was called as soon as the batsmen started to run,
>> he
>> would not have this opportunity. Also, if it to be penalised as soon as
>> the
>> batsmen started to run, where would you draw the line? Would you apply
>> the
>> penalty if the non-striker stepped out of his ground before the bowler
>> entered his delivery stride?
>
> For me they key point is that there is no way of really defining an
> attempt to steal a run rather than just charging the bowler, without
> reading the batsmans mind. Crossing before the ball was delivered
> would be as good a criterion as any (note that if the striker did
> this, he'd be very vunerable to a lob).
>
> The point remains, if it is fielding (an attempted run out), why
> should it be penalised by a no-ball?

Perhaps 24.4 should say that it is a no-ball, but that no run penalty should
be applied.

>> > It is
>> > understandable that the laws are a bit vague here as I can't see a
>> > match situation where the striker would gain advantage. If it were up
>> > to me, I'd not permit the bowler to try and run them out and leave the
>> > rest of the law as it is.
>>
>> I think it is right that the bowler should be able to run out the
>> non-striker at the bowler's end to prevent him from backing up too soon.
>
> absolutely, I just meant that he shouldn't be able to try and run out
> the striker, becuase it makes no sense.
>
>> >> > so it would
>> >> > require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
>> >> > issue!
>>
>> >> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
>> >> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
>>
>> >> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery
>> >> stride",
>> >> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
>>
>> > In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker can't
>> > be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to run
>> > out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?
>>
>> I see your point. The run penalty seems wrong, but it must be right that
>> dismissals other than run-out are prevented, otherwise it would
>> effectively
>> legitimise throwing.
>
> The thing is that if it is a delivery (if an unfair one) the striker
> can't be run out directly as the ball has not touched a fielder
> (including the bowler) since leaving the bowlers hand (law 38.2(b)).
> If it isn't a delivery, there shouldn't be a penalty.
>
>> > What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?
>>
>> Nothing different to what would happen off any other no-ball.
>
> In which case it can't be run out because of 38.2.

Sorry - I should have made that clearer. I meant it would be no different to
any other no-ball that the batsman hit and was caught, in which case 38.2
would not apply.

>> >> While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
>> >> run-out
>> >> cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
>> >> bowler
>> >> had not entered his delivery stride.
>>
>> > True, but "no-ball" in all other contexts refers to an illegal
>> > delivery.
>>
>> What about too many fielders behind square on the leg side, fielders
>> encroaching on the pitch and the wicket-keeper moving in front of the
>> wicket
>> illegally? All no-ball, but nothing to do with the delivery.
>
> I'd say they make the delivery unfair because it was delivered in a
> circumstance made illegal by the relevant laws. They are still to do
> with a delivery (i.e. a ball of the over (unlike a dead ball) that the
> striker has an opportunity to score off) rather than a bit of
> fielding.
>
>> > It seems to me that the intention of the law is that the
>> > ball is to be interpreted as an unfair delivery, so if it hits the
>> > stumps, it would be bowled and not out because it is a no-ball.

If there is no delivery, how can it be an unfair one?

--
David North




24 Feb 2007 17:20:18
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> > -news:[email protected]
>> > ->> >> -> -> -On Feb 22, 10:51 pm, [email protected] (max.it)
>> > wrote:
>> > ->> >> -> -> -> During his run up.
>> > ->> >> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
>> > ->> >> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
>> > ->> >> -> -> ->
>> > ->> >> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
>> > -While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
>> > run-out
>> > -cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
>> > bowler
>> > -had not entered his delivery stride.
>> > The bowler may have entered his delivery stride, but from behind the
>> > umpire. The umpire may call no ball, because he can't see the bowler's
>> > feet, and therefore can't be sure of a fair delivery. (thay's another
>> > one or the scorers)
>>
>> If the bowler threw at the striker's wicket from behind the umpire, I
>> would
>> have thought that the square-leg umpire should see it first and call
>> no-ball
>> under 24.4 before the bowler's end umpire gets a chance to call under
>> 24.5.
>>
>> > So the no ball might no be for the throw, and if for the throw, the
>> > bowler (thrower) would perhaps deliver from wide of the wicket, to get
>> > more stumps to throw at ? Then there is the back foot to consider.
>>
>> If the no-ball is for the throw under Law 24.4, the back foot is
>> irrelevant,
>> because the laws regarding position of the feet only apply in the
>> delivery
>> stride.
>
> But the delivery stride can be done from behind the umpire, as law 9.4
> says that the return creases shall be considered as unlimited in
> length, so "before the delivery stride" is a pretty difficult thing to
> define, how can you tell the difference between a throw to run out the
> batsman and a thrown delivery without making arbitrary assumptions
> about what a normal action is for the bowler (or telepathy).

Agreed. As I said before, it is clearly for the umpire to judge.

IMO, the law on throwing presents a similar problem. I consider the current
law unsatisfactory, as close analysis has shown that almost all deliveries
are thrown according to the definition in Law 24.3. The problem is coming up
with an alternative definition that would be satisfactory.
--
David North




24 Feb 2007 09:37:02
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 24, 5:09 pm, "David North" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 4:16 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]
>
> >> > On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:[email protected]
> >> >> > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North"
> >> >> > <[email protected]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4 refers
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to attempting
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> run
> >> >> >> out
> >> >> >> the non-striker.
>
> >> >> > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
>
> >> >> I wasn't referring to the forward reference.
>
> >> > Ah, in that case I don't understand why it is an anomaly. I can't see
> >> > any link in the laws between 24.4 and 42.15, but there is between 24.4
> >> > and 42.16.
>
> >> What I meant was that the two laws between them don't cover all
> >> possibilites, as I went on to explain, as one specifies the non-striker,
> >> while the other specifies the striker's wicket.
>
> > Ah. Part of the problem I have with all this is that I can see no
> > good reason for the striker to twy and steal a run, for the non-
> > striker it is a bit different as all he has to do is run.
>
> If the batsmen know the law, I would agree.

I've done more than enough umpiring to know that most players have a
pretty shaky grasp of the laws. This included me until I started
umpiring regularly.

> >> >> >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end
> >> >> >> before
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits the
> >> >> >> stumps
> >> >> >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the non-striker
> >> >> >> out
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> met,
> >> >> >> so
> >> >> >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also run
> >> >> >> out.
>
> >> >> > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
> >> >> > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
>
> >> >> "Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the umpire
> >> >> shall
> >> >> (i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any such
> >> >> attempt."
>
> >> >> As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is thrown
> >> >> before
> >> >> the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be pointless,
> >> >> because
> >> >> if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be
> >> >> "during
> >> >> the bowler's run up".
>
> >> > I think that is a fair reading of the law, however the law doesn't
> >> > seem consistent. It says that it is unfair for the batmen to try to
> >> > steal a run, so why should they gain an advantage from unfair play
> >> > just because the subsequently bowler tries to run them out?
>
> >> Possibly because it gives the bowler the chance to gamble on a possible
> >> run-out against the cost of a run or two and the forfeit of the 5-run
> >> penalty. If dead ball was called as soon as the batsmen started to run,
> >> he
> >> would not have this opportunity. Also, if it to be penalised as soon as
> >> the
> >> batsmen started to run, where would you draw the line? Would you apply
> >> the
> >> penalty if the non-striker stepped out of his ground before the bowler
> >> entered his delivery stride?
>
> > For me they key point is that there is no way of really defining an
> > attempt to steal a run rather than just charging the bowler, without
> > reading the batsmans mind. Crossing before the ball was delivered
> > would be as good a criterion as any (note that if the striker did
> > this, he'd be very vunerable to a lob).
>
> > The point remains, if it is fielding (an attempted run out), why
> > should it be penalised by a no-ball?
>
> Perhaps 24.4 should say that it is a no-ball, but that no run penalty should
> be applied.

In in the absence of a penalty, the importance of the no-ball would be
the means by which the batsman can get out. If he can score off it,
it is a delivery, and can't be run out if it hits the stumps directly
as that would be bowled (whether he is in his ground or not) and 38.2
prevents a run out.

I think it would be better to consider any successful attempt to
propel the ball towards the strikers end to constitute a delivery,
just leaving the question as to whether it was a fair one, the problem
then goes away.

> >> > It is
> >> > understandable that the laws are a bit vague here as I can't see a
> >> > match situation where the striker would gain advantage. If it were up
> >> > to me, I'd not permit the bowler to try and run them out and leave the
> >> > rest of the law as it is.
>
> >> I think it is right that the bowler should be able to run out the
> >> non-striker at the bowler's end to prevent him from backing up too soon.
>
> > absolutely, I just meant that he shouldn't be able to try and run out
> > the striker, becuase it makes no sense.
>
> >> >> > so it would
> >> >> > require a very slow bowler or very quick runners for it to be an
> >> >> > issue!
>
> >> >> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the "throw"
> >> >> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
>
> >> >> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery
> >> >> stride",
> >> >> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
>
> >> > In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker can't
> >> > be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to run
> >> > out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?
>
> >> I see your point. The run penalty seems wrong, but it must be right that
> >> dismissals other than run-out are prevented, otherwise it would
> >> effectively
> >> legitimise throwing.
>
> > The thing is that if it is a delivery (if an unfair one) the striker
> > can't be run out directly as the ball has not touched a fielder
> > (including the bowler) since leaving the bowlers hand (law 38.2(b)).
> > If it isn't a delivery, there shouldn't be a penalty.
>
> >> > What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?
>
> >> Nothing different to what would happen off any other no-ball.
>
> > In which case it can't be run out because of 38.2.
>
> Sorry - I should have made that clearer. I meant it would be no different to
> any other no-ball that the batsman hit and was caught, in which case 38.2
> would not apply.

sorry, I wasn't being clear either. If the batsman is allowed to
score off it, it must be a delivery (otherwise the striker would be
out obstructing the field for willfully hitting it), if it is a thrown
delivery (i.e. a no ball) it would be bowled if it hit the stumps
directly and so not out.

> >> >> While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
> >> >> run-out
> >> >> cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
> >> >> bowler
> >> >> had not entered his delivery stride.
>
> >> > True, but "no-ball" in all other contexts refers to an illegal
> >> > delivery.
>
> >> What about too many fielders behind square on the leg side, fielders
> >> encroaching on the pitch and the wicket-keeper moving in front of the
> >> wicket
> >> illegally? All no-ball, but nothing to do with the delivery.
>
> > I'd say they make the delivery unfair because it was delivered in a
> > circumstance made illegal by the relevant laws. They are still to do
> > with a delivery (i.e. a ball of the over (unlike a dead ball) that the
> > striker has an opportunity to score off) rather than a bit of
> > fielding.
>
> >> > It seems to me that the intention of the law is that the
> >> > ball is to be interpreted as an unfair delivery, so if it hits the
> >> > stumps, it would be bowled and not out because it is a no-ball.
>
> If there is no delivery, how can it be an unfair one?

If there is no delivery, why should the batsman be able to score of
it, rather than being out obstructing the field for wilfully hitting
it?

Basically the laws are not consistent. If it is a delivery, it can't
be out if it hits the stumps directly (as it is a throw), if it is not
a delivery, there is no need for a call of no ball as the batsman
can't willfully touch it and so can't be caught out etc (regardless of
penalty).

who'd be an umpire?!



24 Feb 2007 19:31:55
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 24, 5:09 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 4:16 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:[email protected]
>>
>> >> > On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:[email protected]
>> >> >> > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North"
>> >> >> > <[email protected]>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4
>> >> >> >> refers
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to
>> >> >> >> attempting
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> run
>> >> >> >> out
>> >> >> >> the non-striker.
>>
>> >> >> > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
>>
>> >> >> I wasn't referring to the forward reference.
>>
>> >> > Ah, in that case I don't understand why it is an anomaly. I can't
>> >> > see
>> >> > any link in the laws between 24.4 and 42.15, but there is between
>> >> > 24.4
>> >> > and 42.16.
>>
>> >> What I meant was that the two laws between them don't cover all
>> >> possibilites, as I went on to explain, as one specifies the
>> >> non-striker,
>> >> while the other specifies the striker's wicket.
>>
>> > Ah. Part of the problem I have with all this is that I can see no
>> > good reason for the striker to twy and steal a run, for the non-
>> > striker it is a bit different as all he has to do is run.
>>
>> If the batsmen know the law, I would agree.
>
> I've done more than enough umpiring to know that most players have a
> pretty shaky grasp of the laws.

Indeed, which is why it might happen, despite the law.

>> >> >> >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end
>> >> >> >> before
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> stumps
>> >> >> >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the
>> >> >> >> non-striker
>> >> >> >> out
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> met,
>> >> >> >> so
>> >> >> >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also
>> >> >> >> run
>> >> >> >> out.
>>
>> >> >> > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
>> >> >> > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
>>
>> >> >> "Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the
>> >> >> umpire
>> >> >> shall
>> >> >> (i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any
>> >> >> such
>> >> >> attempt."
>>
>> >> >> As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is
>> >> >> thrown
>> >> >> before
>> >> >> the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be
>> >> >> pointless,
>> >> >> because
>> >> >> if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be
>> >> >> "during
>> >> >> the bowler's run up".
>>
>> >> > I think that is a fair reading of the law, however the law doesn't
>> >> > seem consistent. It says that it is unfair for the batmen to try to
>> >> > steal a run, so why should they gain an advantage from unfair play
>> >> > just because the subsequently bowler tries to run them out?
>>
>> >> Possibly because it gives the bowler the chance to gamble on a
>> >> possible
>> >> run-out against the cost of a run or two and the forfeit of the 5-run
>> >> penalty. If dead ball was called as soon as the batsmen started to
>> >> run,
>> >> he
>> >> would not have this opportunity. Also, if it to be penalised as soon
>> >> as
>> >> the
>> >> batsmen started to run, where would you draw the line? Would you apply
>> >> the
>> >> penalty if the non-striker stepped out of his ground before the bowler
>> >> entered his delivery stride?
>>
>> > For me they key point is that there is no way of really defining an
>> > attempt to steal a run rather than just charging the bowler, without
>> > reading the batsmans mind. Crossing before the ball was delivered
>> > would be as good a criterion as any (note that if the striker did
>> > this, he'd be very vunerable to a lob).
>>
>> > The point remains, if it is fielding (an attempted run out), why
>> > should it be penalised by a no-ball?
>>
>> Perhaps 24.4 should say that it is a no-ball, but that no run penalty
>> should
>> be applied.
>
> In in the absence of a penalty, the importance of the no-ball would be
> the means by which the batsman can get out. If he can score off it,
> it is a delivery,

Says you, not the laws.

>> >> >> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the
>> >> >> > "throw"
>> >> >> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
>>
>> >> >> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery
>> >> >> stride",
>> >> >> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
>>
>> >> > In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker
>> >> > can't
>> >> > be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to
>> >> > run
>> >> > out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?
>>
>> >> I see your point. The run penalty seems wrong, but it must be right
>> >> that
>> >> dismissals other than run-out are prevented, otherwise it would
>> >> effectively
>> >> legitimise throwing.
>>
>> > The thing is that if it is a delivery (if an unfair one) the striker
>> > can't be run out directly as the ball has not touched a fielder
>> > (including the bowler) since leaving the bowlers hand (law 38.2(b)).
>> > If it isn't a delivery, there shouldn't be a penalty.
>>
>> >> > What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?
>>
>> >> Nothing different to what would happen off any other no-ball.
>>
>> > In which case it can't be run out because of 38.2.
>>
>> Sorry - I should have made that clearer. I meant it would be no different
>> to
>> any other no-ball that the batsman hit and was caught, in which case 38.2
>> would not apply.
>
> sorry, I wasn't being clear either. If the batsman is allowed to
> score off it, it must be a delivery (otherwise the striker would be
> out obstructing the field for willfully hitting it),

I hadn't thought of that. If the bowler attempts to run out the striker, it
is arguable that he has become a fielder, in which case I see no reason why
OTF should not apply. Therefore, on reflection, I would say that if he hits
it and there is an appeal, he is out OTF.

> if it is a thrown
> delivery (i.e. a no ball) it would be bowled if it hit the stumps
> directly and so not out.
>
>> >> >> While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
>> >> >> run-out
>> >> >> cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
>> >> >> bowler
>> >> >> had not entered his delivery stride.
>>
>> >> > True, but "no-ball" in all other contexts refers to an illegal
>> >> > delivery.
>>
>> >> What about too many fielders behind square on the leg side, fielders
>> >> encroaching on the pitch and the wicket-keeper moving in front of the
>> >> wicket
>> >> illegally? All no-ball, but nothing to do with the delivery.
>>
>> > I'd say they make the delivery unfair because it was delivered in a
>> > circumstance made illegal by the relevant laws. They are still to do
>> > with a delivery (i.e. a ball of the over (unlike a dead ball) that the
>> > striker has an opportunity to score off) rather than a bit of
>> > fielding.
>>
>> >> > It seems to me that the intention of the law is that the
>> >> > ball is to be interpreted as an unfair delivery, so if it hits the
>> >> > stumps, it would be bowled and not out because it is a no-ball.
>>
>> If there is no delivery, how can it be an unfair one?
>
> If there is no delivery, why should the batsman be able to score of
> it, rather than being out obstructing the field for wilfully hitting
> it?
>
> Basically the laws are not consistent. If it is a delivery, it can't
> be out if it hits the stumps directly (as it is a throw), if it is not
> a delivery, there is no need for a call of no ball as the batsman
> can't willfully touch it and so can't be caught out etc (regardless of
> penalty).

Fair point. The laws for bowled, caught and lbw require the ball to be
delivered, while hit wicket requires the bowler to have entered his delivery
stride, so none of those would apply. Stumped requires that the striker "is
receiving a ball which is not a No ball", which is somewhat ambiguous
(although if he is attempting a run, he cannot be stumped).

> who'd be an umpire?!

To be honest, I think we've probably spent more time discussing this than
has ever been spent dealing with such scenarios in reality. ;o)
--
David North




24 Feb 2007 11:57:00
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 24, 7:31 pm, "David North" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 5:09 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]
>
> >> > On Feb 24, 4:16 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:[email protected]
>
> >> >> > On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:[email protected]
> >> >> >> > On Feb 23, 1:33 pm, "David North"
> >> >> >> > <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> There is a bit of an anomaly in the laws, I think, as 24.4
> >> >> >> >> refers
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> throwing at the striker's end, whereas 42.15 refers to
> >> >> >> >> attempting
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> run
> >> >> >> >> out
> >> >> >> >> the non-striker.
>
> >> >> >> > The forward reference is to 42.16 rather than42.15.
>
> >> >> >> I wasn't referring to the forward reference.
>
> >> >> > Ah, in that case I don't understand why it is an anomaly. I can't
> >> >> > see
> >> >> > any link in the laws between 24.4 and 42.15, but there is between
> >> >> > 24.4
> >> >> > and 42.16.
>
> >> >> What I meant was that the two laws between them don't cover all
> >> >> possibilites, as I went on to explain, as one specifies the
> >> >> non-striker,
> >> >> while the other specifies the striker's wicket.
>
> >> > Ah. Part of the problem I have with all this is that I can see no
> >> > good reason for the striker to twy and steal a run, for the non-
> >> > striker it is a bit different as all he has to do is run.
>
> >> If the batsmen know the law, I would agree.
>
> > I've done more than enough umpiring to know that most players have a
> > pretty shaky grasp of the laws.
>
> Indeed, which is why it might happen, despite the law.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> What happens, then, if the bowler throws at the striker's end
> >> >> >> >> before
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> batsmen have crossed (thus nullifying 42.16), but the ball hits
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> stumps
> >> >> >> >> at the striker's end after they have crossed, with the
> >> >> >> >> non-striker
> >> >> >> >> out
> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> his ground? In that case, the conditions for both 24.4 and 42.15
> >> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> >> met,
> >> >> >> >> so
> >> >> >> >> by my reckoning, it is a no-ball, but the non-striker is also
> >> >> >> >> run
> >> >> >> >> out.
>
> >> >> >> > The batsmen would have to start running after the ball was thrown
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > 42.16 to be nullified (the subsequent actions of the bowler can't
> >> >> >> > negate something that was unfair play at the time),
>
> >> >> >> "Unless the bowler attempts to run out either batsman ... the
> >> >> >> umpire
> >> >> >> shall
> >> >> >> (i) call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batsmen cross in any
> >> >> >> such
> >> >> >> attempt."
>
> >> >> >> As I see it, this means that 42.16 is nullified if the ball is
> >> >> >> thrown
> >> >> >> before
> >> >> >> the batsmen cross. Otherwise the "unless" clause would be
> >> >> >> pointless,
> >> >> >> because
> >> >> >> if they started running after the ball was thrown, it would not be
> >> >> >> "during
> >> >> >> the bowler's run up".
>
> >> >> > I think that is a fair reading of the law, however the law doesn't
> >> >> > seem consistent. It says that it is unfair for the batmen to try to
> >> >> > steal a run, so why should they gain an advantage from unfair play
> >> >> > just because the subsequently bowler tries to run them out?
>
> >> >> Possibly because it gives the bowler the chance to gamble on a
> >> >> possible
> >> >> run-out against the cost of a run or two and the forfeit of the 5-run
> >> >> penalty. If dead ball was called as soon as the batsmen started to
> >> >> run,
> >> >> he
> >> >> would not have this opportunity. Also, if it to be penalised as soon
> >> >> as
> >> >> the
> >> >> batsmen started to run, where would you draw the line? Would you apply
> >> >> the
> >> >> penalty if the non-striker stepped out of his ground before the bowler
> >> >> entered his delivery stride?
>
> >> > For me they key point is that there is no way of really defining an
> >> > attempt to steal a run rather than just charging the bowler, without
> >> > reading the batsmans mind. Crossing before the ball was delivered
> >> > would be as good a criterion as any (note that if the striker did
> >> > this, he'd be very vunerable to a lob).
>
> >> > The point remains, if it is fielding (an attempted run out), why
> >> > should it be penalised by a no-ball?
>
> >> Perhaps 24.4 should say that it is a no-ball, but that no run penalty
> >> should
> >> be applied.
>
> > In in the absence of a penalty, the importance of the no-ball would be
> > the means by which the batsman can get out. If he can score off it,
> > it is a delivery,
>
> Says you, not the laws.

If it is an attempt to run the batsman out, but not a delivery, the
batsman should be out obstructing the field, why should he be able to
score runs of it?

I don't think the law defines a delivery sufficiently well to
distinguish it from a throw in this context.

> >> >> >> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the
> >> >> >> > "throw"
> >> >> >> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of fielding.
>
> >> >> >> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery
> >> >> >> stride",
> >> >> >> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
>
> >> >> > In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker
> >> >> > can't
> >> >> > be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to
> >> >> > run
> >> >> > out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?
>
> >> >> I see your point. The run penalty seems wrong, but it must be right
> >> >> that
> >> >> dismissals other than run-out are prevented, otherwise it would
> >> >> effectively
> >> >> legitimise throwing.
>
> >> > The thing is that if it is a delivery (if an unfair one) the striker
> >> > can't be run out directly as the ball has not touched a fielder
> >> > (including the bowler) since leaving the bowlers hand (law 38.2(b)).
> >> > If it isn't a delivery, there shouldn't be a penalty.
>
> >> >> > What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?
>
> >> >> Nothing different to what would happen off any other no-ball.
>
> >> > In which case it can't be run out because of 38.2.
>
> >> Sorry - I should have made that clearer. I meant it would be no different
> >> to
> >> any other no-ball that the batsman hit and was caught, in which case 38.2
> >> would not apply.
>
> > sorry, I wasn't being clear either. If the batsman is allowed to
> > score off it, it must be a delivery (otherwise the striker would be
> > out obstructing the field for willfully hitting it),
>
> I hadn't thought of that. If the bowler attempts to run out the striker, it
> is arguable that he has become a fielder, in which case I see no reason why
> OTF should not apply. Therefore, on reflection, I would say that if he hits
> it and there is an appeal, he is out OTF.

I have checked at the MCC website and according to the "FAQ" lists, it
is out run out if the bowler hits the stumps directly, but the striker
is also allowed to score runs off it, so it is all very confused!

> > if it is a thrown
> > delivery (i.e. a no ball) it would be bowled if it hit the stumps
> > directly and so not out.
>
> >> >> >> While Law 24.4 says that no-ball is called, it does not say that a
> >> >> >> run-out
> >> >> >> cannot be effected. Law 38.2(b) does not prevent it either, as the
> >> >> >> bowler
> >> >> >> had not entered his delivery stride.
>
> >> >> > True, but "no-ball" in all other contexts refers to an illegal
> >> >> > delivery.
>
> >> >> What about too many fielders behind square on the leg side, fielders
> >> >> encroaching on the pitch and the wicket-keeper moving in front of the
> >> >> wicket
> >> >> illegally? All no-ball, but nothing to do with the delivery.
>
> >> > I'd say they make the delivery unfair because it was delivered in a
> >> > circumstance made illegal by the relevant laws. They are still to do
> >> > with a delivery (i.e. a ball of the over (unlike a dead ball) that the
> >> > striker has an opportunity to score off) rather than a bit of
> >> > fielding.
>
> >> >> > It seems to me that the intention of the law is that the
> >> >> > ball is to be interpreted as an unfair delivery, so if it hits the
> >> >> > stumps, it would be bowled and not out because it is a no-ball.
>
> >> If there is no delivery, how can it be an unfair one?
>
> > If there is no delivery, why should the batsman be able to score of
> > it, rather than being out obstructing the field for wilfully hitting
> > it?
>
> > Basically the laws are not consistent. If it is a delivery, it can't
> > be out if it hits the stumps directly (as it is a throw), if it is not
> > a delivery, there is no need for a call of no ball as the batsman
> > can't willfully touch it and so can't be caught out etc (regardless of
> > penalty).
>
> Fair point. The laws for bowled, caught and lbw require the ball to be
> delivered, while hit wicket requires the bowler to have entered his delivery
> stride, so none of those would apply. Stumped requires that the striker "is
> receiving a ball which is not a No ball", which is somewhat ambiguous
> (although if he is attempting a run, he cannot be stumped).

The distinction between delivering the ball (regardless of whether it
was legitimately bowled) and throwing it is too fine for the law to be
really workable in my view. You are allowed to bowl from as far back
as you like, so you can't use proximity to the stumps, a coil/leap
before delivery isn't used by every bowler (if you bowl chest on you
can just run through the crease), it is perfectly legal to bowl from a
standing position (Croft does this), bowl off the wrong foot
(Procter?). Given this, how can you tell? (yes, I know I am being
pedantic, but lawmakers should be even more pedantic ;-)

> > who'd be an umpire?!
>
> To be honest, I think we've probably spent more time discussing this than
> has ever been spent dealing with such scenarios in reality. ;o)

Agreed, however I have to say that fruitlessly discussing the laws is
far more enjoyable ;-)



24 Feb 2007 20:16:32
max.it
Re: scoring question

-"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
-news:[email protected]
- > -On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -> -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
- > ->
- > -> -news:[email protected]
- > -> ->
- > -> -> During his run up.
- > -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- > -> ->
- > -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
- > -> -
- > -> -IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think
it's a
- > -> no-ball
- > -> -and the striker is run out.
- > -> -
- > -> -Good question.
- > -> ---
- > -> -David North
- > -> -
- > ->
- > -> It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book
- > varies
- > -> depending on the scorer.
- > ->
- > -> max.it
- > -
- > -Do you have a firm reference for that (the laws themselves are
- > -unclear)? If so, I'd be interested to know why it is a no-ball.
- > -
- >
- > It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the batsman
is
- > expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for
a
- > throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and not
a
- > delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not
apply.
-
-You obviously see 24.4 as a special case of 24.2/3. I see 24.2/3 as
applying
-only to deliveries, not non-deliveries.
-
---
-David North
-

It is a run out attempt, but, the batsman is entitled to recieve a
fair delivery when he expects to recieve a fair delivery.

I thought about the bowler delivering from 27 yards and the umpire
calling no ball because he wasn't able to see the feet (not
satisfied). The striker charging and missing the ball. There would be
no throw and the batsman would have been bowled by a no ball on the
toss and dismissed run out.

I might make this the first one on my blog. Depends on how fat my head
is tomorrow. Notice how I didn't mention rugby, or Croke park, or God
save the Queen. If you didn't see it then you missed it.........

max.it


24 Feb 2007 22:03:04
Marco
Re: scoring question

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:36:55 GMT, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:


>It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the batsman is
>expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for a
>throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and not a
>delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not apply.
>The no ball is treated just the same as any other no ball, it might
>end up out of the ground, or it may run someone out.
>Saying this, the batsman is gaining an advantage by standing out of
>his ground to begin with, so it is fair that the bowler should have
>the chance to run out the batsman. 24.4 deals with the attempt to run
>out the striker by the bowler from "that type" of no ball.
>

Think of it like this. If the bowler delivered a thrown ball that
*wasn't* intended to run the striker out, but the striker leaves
his crease, misses the ball and the ball breaks the wicket, then
the scoreboard doesn't show "bowled by a no-ball", so why should
it be any different if the bowler is attempting a run-out, and
who decides if he *is* or *isn't* attempting a run out - that's a
subjective opinion!

It's a great question but I really am sure the answer is

1. No ball (throwing)
2. Not out
3. Not counted as a ball in the over


24 Feb 2007 22:12:50
David North
Re: scoring question

"Gavin Cawley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 24, 7:31 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 5:09 pm, "David North" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:[email protected]
>>
>> >> > On Feb 24, 4:16 pm, "David North"
>> >> > <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:[email protected]
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 23, 11:17 pm, "David North"
>> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Gavin Cawley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>news:[email protected]
>> >> >> >> > I'd say it was a no-ball, but neither batsman is out as the
>> >> >> >> > "throw"
>> >> >> >> > constitutes an illegal delivery, rather than a bit of
>> >> >> >> > fielding.
>>
>> >> >> >> Since Law 24.4 specifies a throw "before entering his delivery
>> >> >> >> stride",
>> >> >> >> surely it cannot constitute a delivery, legal or illegal?
>>
>> >> >> > In which case, why the call of "no ball" (indicating the striker
>> >> >> > can't
>> >> >> > be stumped, bowled, caught etc), if it is a legitimate attempt to
>> >> >> > run
>> >> >> > out the batsmen, why should it attract a penalty?
>>
>> >> >> I see your point. The run penalty seems wrong, but it must be right
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> dismissals other than run-out are prevented, otherwise it would
>> >> >> effectively
>> >> >> legitimise throwing.
>>
>> >> > The thing is that if it is a delivery (if an unfair one) the striker
>> >> > can't be run out directly as the ball has not touched a fielder
>> >> > (including the bowler) since leaving the bowlers hand (law 38.2(b)).
>> >> > If it isn't a delivery, there shouldn't be a penalty.
>>
>> >> >> > What would happen if the batsman hit it and was caught?
>>
>> >> >> Nothing different to what would happen off any other no-ball.
>>
>> >> > In which case it can't be run out because of 38.2.
>>
>> >> Sorry - I should have made that clearer. I meant it would be no
>> >> different
>> >> to
>> >> any other no-ball that the batsman hit and was caught, in which case
>> >> 38.2
>> >> would not apply.
>>
>> > sorry, I wasn't being clear either. If the batsman is allowed to
>> > score off it, it must be a delivery (otherwise the striker would be
>> > out obstructing the field for willfully hitting it),
>>
>> I hadn't thought of that. If the bowler attempts to run out the striker,
>> it
>> is arguable that he has become a fielder, in which case I see no reason
>> why
>> OTF should not apply. Therefore, on reflection, I would say that if he
>> hits
>> it and there is an appeal, he is out OTF.
>
> I have checked at the MCC website and according to the "FAQ" lists, it
> is out run out if the bowler hits the stumps directly, but the striker
> is also allowed to score runs off it, so it is all very confused!

I notice that they don't say anything about OTF. Apart from that, what they
are saying is that it is up to the bowler to decide whether he wants to take
the risk of trying to run someone out, which is more or less what I said
earlier.

> The distinction between delivering the ball (regardless of whether it
> was legitimately bowled) and throwing it is too fine for the law to be
> really workable in my view. You are allowed to bowl from as far back
> as you like, so you can't use proximity to the stumps, a coil/leap
> before delivery isn't used by every bowler (if you bowl chest on you
> can just run through the crease), it is perfectly legal to bowl from a
> standing position (Croft does this), bowl off the wrong foot
> (Procter?). Given this, how can you tell? (yes, I know I am being
> pedantic, but lawmakers should be even more pedantic ;-)

I think you and I and the umpire could tell the difference with reasonable
certainty; we just can't define it.
--
David North




24 Feb 2007 22:29:53
David North
Re: scoring question

"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> -news:[email protected]
> -> -On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
> -> -> -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> -> ->
> -> -> -news:[email protected]
> -> -> ->
> -> -> -> During his run up.
> -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
> -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
> -> -> ->
> -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
> -> -> -
> -> -> -IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think
> it's a
> -> -> no-ball
> -> -> -and the striker is run out.
> -> -> -
> -> -> -Good question.
> -> -> ---
> -> -> -David North
> -> -> -
> -> ->
> -> -> It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book
> -> varies
> -> -> depending on the scorer.
> -> ->
> -> -> max.it
> -> -
> -> -Do you have a firm reference for that (the laws themselves are
> -> -unclear)? If so, I'd be interested to know why it is a no-ball.
> -> -
> ->
> -> It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the batsman
> is
> -> expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for
> a
> -> throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and not
> a
> -> delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not
> apply.
> -
> -You obviously see 24.4 as a special case of 24.2/3. I see 24.2/3 as
> applying
> -only to deliveries, not non-deliveries.

> It is a run out attempt, but, the batsman is entitled to recieve a
> fair delivery when he expects to recieve a fair delivery.

... which is not when the bowler is halfway through his run-up.

If the batsman expects to receive a fair delivery, he should flippin' well
stay there and face it! After all, the bowler is entitled to expect a
batsman at the other to bowl to.

> Notice how I didn't mention rugby, or Croke park, or God
> save the Queen.

You have now, though, haven't you?

> If you didn't see it then you missed it.........

I saw it, thanks.
--
David North




24 Feb 2007 22:42:13
David North
Re: scoring question

"Marco" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:36:55 GMT, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
>
>
>>It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the batsman is
>>expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for a
>>throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and not a
>>delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not apply.
>>The no ball is treated just the same as any other no ball, it might
>>end up out of the ground, or it may run someone out.
>>Saying this, the batsman is gaining an advantage by standing out of
>>his ground to begin with, so it is fair that the bowler should have
>>the chance to run out the batsman. 24.4 deals with the attempt to run
>>out the striker by the bowler from "that type" of no ball.
>>
>
> Think of it like this. If the bowler delivered a thrown ball that
> *wasn't* intended to run the striker out, but the striker leaves
> his crease, misses the ball and the ball breaks the wicket, then
> the scoreboard doesn't show "bowled by a no-ball", so why should
> it be any different if the bowler is attempting a run-out, and
> who decides if he *is* or *isn't* attempting a run out - that's a
> subjective opinion!

It's not the only case where a subjective opinion is required. For instance,
there are a number of places where the word 'wilfully' appears in the laws.
Anyway, what the umpire has to decide is whether or not the bowler had
entered his delivery stride, not why he threw the ball towards the striker's
end. It's still a subjective opinion, though.
--
David North




24 Feb 2007 23:50:56
max.it
Re: scoring question

-"max.it" <[email protected] > wrote in message
-news:[email protected]
- > -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
- > -news:[email protected]
- > -> -On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (max.it) wrote:
- > -> -> -"max.it" <[email protected]> wrote in message
- > -> ->
- > -> -> -news:[email protected]
- > -> -> ->
- > -> -> -> During his run up.
- > -> -> -> The bowler throws the stumps down at the strikers end.
- > -> -> -> The batsman isout of his ground and run out.
- > -> -> ->
- > -> -> -> What will be the entry in the score book ?
- > -> -> -
- > -> -> -IMO, the answer is not what I first thought it was. I think
- > it's a
- > -> -> no-ball
- > -> -> -and the striker is run out.
- > -> -> -
- > -> -> -Good question.
- > -> -> ---
- > -> -> -David North
- > -> -> -
- > -> ->
- > -> -> It's run out off the no ball, and the entry to the score book
- > -> varies
- > -> -> depending on the scorer.
- > -> ->
- > -> -> max.it
- > -> -
- > -> -Do you have a firm reference for that (the laws themselves are
- > -> -unclear)? If so, I'd be interested to know why it is a
no-ball.
- > -> -
- > ->
- > -> It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the
batsman
- > is
- > -> expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised
for
- > a
- > -> throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and
not
- > a
- > -> delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not
- > apply.
- > -
- > -You obviously see 24.4 as a special case of 24.2/3. I see 24.2/3
as
- > applying
- > -only to deliveries, not non-deliveries.
-
- > It is a run out attempt, but, the batsman is entitled to recieve a
- > fair delivery when he expects to recieve a fair delivery.
-
-... which is not when the bowler is halfway through his run-up.
-
-If the batsman expects to receive a fair delivery, he should flippin'
well
-stay there and face it! After all, the bowler is entitled to expect a

-batsman at the other to bowl to.

The umpire will tell you that it's a batsman's game.

max.it

-
- > Notice how I didn't mention rugby, or Croke park, or God
- > save the Queen.
-
-You have now, though, haven't you?
-
- > If you didn't see it then you missed it.........
-
-I saw it, thanks.
---
-David North
-
-



24 Feb 2007 23:54:50
max.it
Re: scoring question

-"Marco" <[email protected] > wrote in message
-news:[email protected]
- > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:36:55 GMT, [email protected] (max.it)
wrote:
- >
- >
- >>It's a no ball for the throw. 24.3. It's fair that if the batsman
is
- >>expecting a fair ball then then the bowler should be penalised for
a
- >>throwing the ball. The fact that this is a run out attempt and not
a
- >>delivery means that the caution for an unfair delivery does not
apply.
- >>The no ball is treated just the same as any other no ball, it might
- >>end up out of the ground, or it may run someone out.
- >>Saying this, the batsman is gaining an advantage by standing out of
- >>his ground to begin with, so it is fair that the bowler should
have
- >>the chance to run out the batsman. 24.4 deals with the attempt to
run
- >>out the striker by the bowler from "that type" of no ball.
- >>
- >
- > Think of it like this. If the bowler delivered a thrown ball that
- > *wasn't* intended to run the striker out, but the striker leaves
- > his crease, misses the ball and the ball breaks the wicket, then
- > the scoreboard doesn't show "bowled by a no-ball", so why should
- > it be any different if the bowler is attempting a run-out, and
- > who decides if he *is* or *isn't* attempting a run out - that's a
- > subjective opinion!
-
-It's not the only case where a subjective opinion is required. For
instance,
-there are a number of places where the word 'wilfully' appears in the
laws.
-Anyway, what the umpire has to decide is whether or not the bowler
had
-entered his delivery stride, not why he threw the ball towards the
striker's
-end. It's still a subjective opinion, though.
---
-David North
-
-

The umpire does not have to know why the ball was thrown, just when
then ball was thrown.

max.it


26 Feb 2007 15:01:37
Andy Guthrie
Re: scoring question

max.it wrote:
>
> It is a run out attempt, but, the batsman is entitled to recieve a
> fair delivery when he expects to recieve a fair delivery.
>
> I thought about the bowler delivering from 27 yards and the umpire
> calling no ball because he wasn't able to see the feet (not
> satisfied). The striker charging and missing the ball. There would be
> no throw and the batsman would have been bowled by a no ball on the
> toss and dismissed run out.

What about the situation of scores level ? It seems that the striker
can attempt the steal knowing that even if run out the no-ball will win
the match for him/her.


26 Feb 2007 07:19:19
Gavin Cawley
Re: scoring question

On Feb 26, 3:01 pm, Andy Guthrie <[email protected] > wrote:
> max.it wrote:
>
> > It is a run out attempt, but, the batsman is entitled to recieve a
> > fair delivery when he expects to recieve a fair delivery.
>
> > I thought about the bowler delivering from 27 yards and the umpire
> > calling no ball because he wasn't able to see the feet (not
> > satisfied). The striker charging and missing the ball. There would be
> > no throw and the batsman would have been bowled by a no ball on the
> > toss and dismissed run out.

batsman would not be run out in this case as the no-ball was for an
unfair delivery (or at least ump not confident of its fairness)

> What about the situation of scores level ? It seems that the striker
> can attempt the steal knowing that even if run out the no-ball will win
> the match for him/her.

No, the umpire will call dead ball as soon as they cross, they don't
get a run, but a 5 run penalty to the other side. Unless the bowler
tries to run out one of the batsmen, there is no advantage to the
striker in trying to steal a run.