Maddhew
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2007
- 4,619
- 3,351
- AFL Club
- Sydney
They lit up when the ball hit and the bails didn't dislodge
Zing bails: the counterfactual
- Thread starter blackcat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The bails being dislodged is an objective measure to recognise that the stumps/bails have been hit.
This is not true at all. It's not about the ball hitting the stumps, it's about the ball hitting hard enough to dislodge a bail. This particular ball, like many, many others throughout the history of the game, did not.
- Thread starter
- #54
can ask the question on the definition.
the current zing definition, means just when the electric link has been broke to light the bails. now if the bails came back down and fell back into the slot, I do not know if the current bail device would then stop lighting if the circuit is re-engaged. But previously, a wooden bail could prop up out of the slot, on one end of the bail, and still rest on the top of the stump (precariously), and not fall. If a fat keeper like Healy jumps up and down, he probably could have made the bail fall.
good point mattf83
plus ManWithNoName
- Thread starter
- #55
yes. however, the devil's advocate would be about the Rules Of The Game, and like the US Constitution, is this a living breathing document. Or, like the rules were originallly intended, like imadodgyumpire asserts, merely the bails are indicator the stumps have been hit with hands/ball/bat within the laws, and the batsman is out/not out.
Or, have the bails become a significant element inandof themself?
When the bails are off, and the runs continue, the keeper or fielder at other end, needs to unroot a stump and hold it up with the ball dont they? or dislodge the stump from the turf?
I have no point, I am just rounding out the dialogue on the instrument role of the bails.
- Thread starter
- #56
what is hard enough? should this change in force?
Maddhew
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2007
- 4,619
- 3,351
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The third umpire used to look for separation between the bail and the slot, again this could be 2-3 frames more than when the light goes. When Hazelwood hit the stumps and the bails didn't dislodge, the stumps lit up.can ask the question on the definition.
the current zing definition, means just when the electric link has been broke to light the bails. now if the bails came back down and fell back into the slot, I do not know if the current bail device would then stop lighting if the circuit is re-engaged. But previously, a wooden bail could prop up out of the slot, on one end of the bail, and still rest on the top of the stump (precariously), and not fall. If a fat keeper like Healy jumps up and down, he probably could have made the bail fall.
good point mattf83
plus ManWithNoName
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...sbah-ulhaq-a-lucky-break-20150320-1m412z.html
The bail in that case DID dislodge, causing the stumps to light up. Fortunately for the batsman, the bail fell back into place, cancelling the light. Under the laws of the game, the bail must fall to the ground. Again, it's not even close to being the first time this has happened.
1) Hard enough to dislodge a bail which fits within the size and weight parameters as laid out in the laws of the game.
2) No it shouldn't.
- Thread starter
- #60
but it (2) depends on how the stumps are screwed into the turf. A tough WACA, or soft soil, SCG? Or Edem Park. will still change a little.
Maddhew
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2007
- 4,619
- 3,351
- AFL Club
- Sydney
whilst force is a factor, you also have to look
It didn't dislodge, watch the Video.
Im not arguing for or against the bails, if anything I like them.
My point is that the 3rd umpire has changed their interpretation of the rule where they use the point the stumps light up, rather than when the bail dislodges for run outs, of course the bail ultimately has to fall.
JohnnyDrama1
Club Legend
- Mar 4, 2014
- 1,632
- 820
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
What has this specific incident got to do with zing bails? Seeing as they're the same weight as the classic wooden bails, why are the zing bails being blamed when if normal bails would've been used, the exact same thing would've happened...
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
I'm not sure how long you have been watching cricket, or whether you have played the game, but I can recall several instances when the ball hit the stumps with insufficient force to dislodge a bail. It happens sometimes regardless of bails used, it is not a problem.
The obvious advantage is to aid the 3rd umpire in run outs and stumpings. The bail/stumps do not light up unless the bail is dislodged. It allows close calls to be more easily judged rather than ascertaining if a bail has lifted from a stump from grainy zoomed footage. Someone noted the issue if the bail was dislodged and then fell back into place. Well that would be noticable to all involved by the fact the bail would still be on the bloody stump, and the run out would not even be referred.
If it was a NZ player who got reprieved, i would have gone "ahhhhhhhhhhhhh" then said s**t happens and called the batsman a lucky bastard. I wouldn't be on the internet having a sook about some bails that might be 1 gram heavier than normal
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/video-matt-prior-ball-hits-wickets-but-bails-stay-on-2013032614
Stop the crickets...its rigged.
Notice it usually happens when the ball hits near the base of the stumps, like the smith one. Its not uncommon
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
If people think that it is harder to dislodge then maybe set up a test in doors with a control amount of force and see if it is any harder to dislodge them.
People might be amazed at how many times the stumps have actually been grazed by the ball and the bails didn't dislodge. The light will come on only when the circuit is broken, but that in itself is not enough to see the bails dislodge. I've seen a bail come fully out of the grove and not fall on the ground. The umpire looked at it for a few seconds, then reset the stumps and play continued batsman still at the crease (bowler was massively pissed and whined about it for the whole next week).
People might be amazed at how many times the stumps have actually been grazed by the ball and the bails didn't dislodge. The light will come on only when the circuit is broken, but that in itself is not enough to see the bails dislodge. I've seen a bail come fully out of the grove and not fall on the ground. The umpire looked at it for a few seconds, then reset the stumps and play continued batsman still at the crease (bowler was massively pissed and whined about it for the whole next week).
I can remember watching the 88/89 Windies tour, and have played in 9 seasons so far from 05/06 to 13/14. Is that good enough?
I've recalled seeing the stumps getting tickled, and the bails fall into place. But I've also seen softer impacts dislodge the bails. If the stumps are put in properly. The same level of impact should have a bigger effect at the bottom of the stump, than the top. It's
I can remember watching the 88/89 Windies tour, and have played in 9 seasons so far from 05/06 to 13/14. Is that good enough?
I've recalled seeing the stumps getting tickled, and the bails fall into place. But I've also seen softer impacts dislodge the bails. If the stumps are put in properly. The same level of impact should have a bigger effect at the bottom of the stump, than the top. It's
Incorrect. Levers exist for a reason.
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
learn2physics
- Thread starter
- #69
imadodgyumpire may have been ambiguous with the wording.
ofcourse, a lever implies an axis of rotation. but when the stumps are supposedly unfixed into the ground this means the applied physics and engineering is altered.
stumps affixed in first class turf wickets, and not stumps affixed is a soil or sand in the sandbelt in melbourne.
Another element, not raised, is how the tough and trench of the bails, may be less susceptible to edges from a perpendicular direction, because the stumps push in from the side, and the bails can be a buttress to the stumps in this direction.
like the above youtube clips where a fast bowler at ~140km has edged off the stumps.
Certainly, the rules were not created so the bails and stumps are not dislodged when a medium or fast bowler, takes the edge off the stumps. To me, this would be a greater proof, the trench was incorrectly wittled out. it could be wittled out in an arc, or it could be wittled out in a pefect semi-circle, or 150degrees of the semi-circle. not the full 180degrees.
The argument is/or is not, valid, wrt a ball rolling into the stumps from a spinner or backspinning off a medium/or fast bowler. But when Dale Steyn has beaten the bat? That was not how the stumps were designed?
It's exactly how they were designed. Hit them hard enough and the bails will come off.
- Thread starter
- #71
point taken. but Steyn bowls minimum 140k, and can up to low 150s
It doesn't matter how fast you bowl, there will/must be a point where the stumps are grazed but not hard enough. The faster the ball is going, the less of the stump you have to catch to get the bails off, but there is still a point where you won't hit it hard enough.
True. But it has nothing to do with cricket. The pointy tip is only there to give the stump the minimum strength required to stand upright all day without interruption. If you could trust they could do so without it, then it'd be a flat bottom. At that point, any impact would be sufficient to dislodge a bail. The pointy tip isn't even acknowledged as part of the stump.
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
Mate pls, if a ball hits the top of a stump with the same force as a ball that hits the bottom of the stump, the ball that hit the top of the stump will exert a greater force at the fulcrum (the point where the stump enters the ground), due to the length of the stump acting as a lever.
This will in turn cause a greater arc of movement at the top of the stump, meaning the bails are far more likely to be dislodged.
This will in turn cause a greater arc of movement at the top of the stump, meaning the bails are far more likely to be dislodged.
I guess bails were invented primarily for one reason:
1. If the bail falls off - the wicket was hit. Imagine trying to adjudicate on the Steyn example above with no TV replay - was it bat, was it pad, was it bat on pad, was it bat on ground? If the bails fall off - it was the stumps. (I played in a schoolboy game where exactly the same thing happened - the difference was with our bowler bowling at about 95ks, it was obvious to the keeper and first slip that it the ball had clearly clipped the stump. At 140ks - not so much).
Also, there are plenty of snicks that go through to the keeper that the umpire doesn't hear - probably there are several examples of ball clipping stumps so fine the umpire doesn't hear (maybe the ump in the Steyn example didn't hear a thing). If the bail is off - SOMETHING hit the stumps. End of argument.
And at some point, the rule was decided - unless the wicket is broken (bails or stumps displaced), it's not out. Fine - that's the rule (there are provisions in the case of exceptional windy weather, or if there are no bails available (park cricket), it reverts to 'Umpires are sole judges of whether the wicket has been hit or not'.
1. If the bail falls off - the wicket was hit. Imagine trying to adjudicate on the Steyn example above with no TV replay - was it bat, was it pad, was it bat on pad, was it bat on ground? If the bails fall off - it was the stumps. (I played in a schoolboy game where exactly the same thing happened - the difference was with our bowler bowling at about 95ks, it was obvious to the keeper and first slip that it the ball had clearly clipped the stump. At 140ks - not so much).
Also, there are plenty of snicks that go through to the keeper that the umpire doesn't hear - probably there are several examples of ball clipping stumps so fine the umpire doesn't hear (maybe the ump in the Steyn example didn't hear a thing). If the bail is off - SOMETHING hit the stumps. End of argument.
And at some point, the rule was decided - unless the wicket is broken (bails or stumps displaced), it's not out. Fine - that's the rule (there are provisions in the case of exceptional windy weather, or if there are no bails available (park cricket), it reverts to 'Umpires are sole judges of whether the wicket has been hit or not'.
Similar threads
