What is the ruling here?

[dr nick]

i've been wondering about this for a couple of years, and hopefully someone with a good knowledge of the laws can fill me in here (sort of a follow on from my post in the worst umpiring decision thread).

firstly if the ball deflects off a batsman's thighpad and races to the boundary, and the umpire is 60% sure that it flicked the bat as well, am i right in saying it will be adjudged runs??

secondly if there is a bat pad catch with a 60% probability that there was an inside edge, am i right in saying a not out decision will be given?? benefit of doubt and all that.

thirdly, what will be the ruling if the umpire 'thinks' but is not sure that a batsman has hit the ball, gone ballooning to short fine leg and they've run a single. would it be given runs, leg byes or out??

 

[dr nick]

the overthrow rule.

at what stage do runs completed get added to overthrows?
if the batsman were to take off for a quick single and a shot at the stumps goes for 4 overthrows, on what basis will it be given 5?

a) if the batsman have crossed at the time the ball flies past the stumps.

b) if the batsman have completed a run before the ball hits the boundary.

c) if the batsman have crossed at the time the ball hits the boundary.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by nicko18
i've been wondering about this for a couple of years, and hopefully someone with a good knowledge of the laws can fill me in here (sort of a follow on from my post in the worst umpiring decision thread).

firstly if the ball deflects off a batsman's thighpad and races to the boundary, and the umpire is 60% sure that it flicked the bat as well, am i right in saying it will be adjudged runs??

secondly if there is a bat pad catch with a 60% probability that there was an inside edge, am i right in saying a not out decision will be given?? benefit of doubt and all that.

thirdly, what will be the ruling if the umpire 'thinks' but is not sure that a batsman has hit the ball, gone ballooning to short fine leg and they've run a single. would it be given runs, leg byes or out??

1) If the umpire thinks it probably came of the bat then it is runs to the batsman not legbyes.

2) If the umpire thinks it probably hit the bat they should give it out. However, some umpires give more benefit of the doubts than others.

3) Again if the umpire thinks that the batsman hit the ball & it is caught by short-leg, then it is out. It couldn't possibly be runs to the batsman!

 

[hourn]

nicko,

al those incidents would basically just be the umpires descreation as to what he believes has happened.

in answer to your question, i think it would be if the batsmen have crossed when the ball passes the stumps???? but im' not 100% sure.

i had a look on the MCC laws of cricket and i couldn't find it.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by nicko18
the overthrow rule.

at what stage do runs completed get added to overthrows?
if the batsman were to take off for a quick single and a shot at the stumps goes for 4 overthrows, on what basis will it be given 5?

a) if the batsman have crossed at the time the ball flies past the stumps.

b) if the batsman have completed a run before the ball hits the boundary.

c) if the batsman have crossed at the time the ball hits the boundary.

Rule 19.6

the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they have crossed at the instant of the throw or act

so another option to yours. So in your example if they hadn't crossed when the fielder threw, then it would be four runs.

 

[Booze Hound]

The notes for umpires cover the situation for overthrows and awarding of penalty runs in certain situations clearly.

Jim Boy is right.

The guidance given is that you should count any completed runs or runs that are in the process of being completed, which is further defined as the batsmen having crossed.

Re the original point of this post, I am a qualified umpire and never employ 'benfit of the doubt'. I work on the theory that if their is doubt 'the state of things shall stand. Unless I'm clear that the contact was pad only I will give runs to the batsman (on a single, a quiet question as the striker arrives at your end can be useful - unless they are Aussies). Unless I am sure the ball, or fielder in contact with the ball, has broken the boundary I will assume it has not etc.

It's all you can really do.

Here's a poser for you (I know the answer).

The ball is struck and the batsmen run. They pass in the middle of the pitch and, before either makes their ground to stumps are broken at the bowlers end.

1. Who is out?

2. If a dismissal had not occured what should the umpires actions be afterwards?

Hmmmm............

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by Booze Hound

Here's a poser for you (I know the answer).

The ball is struck and the batsmen run. They pass in the middle of the pitch and, before either makes their ground to stumps are broken at the bowlers end.

1. Who is out?

2. If a dismissal had not occured what should the umpires actions be afterwards?

Hmmmm............

1. The striker.

2. I don't totally get what you mean. If I'm thinking what you mean, it would seem a bit of a nonsense situation.

Bob

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by nicko18
firstly if the ball deflects off a batsman's thighpad and races to the boundary, and the umpire is 60% sure that it flicked the bat as well, am i right in saying it will be adjudged runs??

I would give it runs.

secondly if there is a bat pad catch with a 60% probability that there was an inside edge, am i right in saying a not out decision will be given?? benefit of doubt and all that.

The umpire will either think it's 'out' or 'not out'. If he's not sure, it's 'not out'.

thirdly, what will be the ruling if the umpire 'thinks' but is not sure that a batsman has hit the ball, gone ballooning to short fine leg and they've run a single. would it be given runs, leg byes or out??

If I 'thought' the batman hit it, I would give it out. In the situation where I wasn't sure, any decision other than giving leg byes would cause a riot! (and be a totally illogical decision) The only way that an umpire can be totally sure of a decision, in some circumstances, is if he sees a video replay.

Bob

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Booze Hound

Here's a poser for you (I know the answer).

The ball is struck and the batsmen run. They pass in the middle of the pitch and, before either makes their ground to stumps are broken at the bowlers end.

1. Who is out?

2. If a dismissal had not occured what should the umpires actions be afterwards?

Hmmmm............

1. No one, no fielder has touched the ball so no run out has occured.

2. Put the bails back on the stumps

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by Zombie
1. No one, no fielder has touched the ball so no run out has occured.

2. Put the bails back on the stumps

Stupid me, I just assumed that the fielder has touched the ball!! Now it makes sense.

Bob

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by Booze Hound

The ball is struck and the batsmen run. They pass in the middle of the pitch and, before either makes their ground to stumps are broken at the bowlers end.

1. Who is out?

2. If a dismissal had not occured what should the umpires actions be afterwards?

Hmmmm............

1/. If a fielder has touched it then the striker would be out, otherwise nobody is out.

2/. Until the ball is dead, then the umpire should leave the wicket alone.

 

[dr nick]

an interesting one happened earlier this summer. we always see decisions referred to the 3rd umpire and given not out because there is 5% doubt about the dismissal.

an aussie batsman (gilchrist i think) hooked a ball where an english fielder (tudor i think) took the catch millimetres inside the rope.

the reason the decision was interesting is because the 3rd umpire is only allowed to rule whether or not it is a boundary (or a 6 in this case). he makes this decision based on probability. if he was to give a ruling whether the batsman was out or not, by precedents set with low catches, stumpings and run outs, that would have most certainly been given not out, but the probability was that his foot did not touch the rope, so was not a "6" and this was the ruling sent back to the field umpire, who then gave the batter (gilchrist??) out.

the similar circumstance with my opening post would have been that the catch was not taken because you couldnt see if his foot touched the rope or not, and only a single was scored because his foot probably didnt hit the rope.