On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:25:17 GMT, RodP
Quote:
>> > > It was 2 bean balls you fool. Waqar is lucky he didn't get his head
>> kicked
>> > > in.
>> > Vague recollection of Symonds advancing a few steps down the wicket to
>> > have a go at Waqar, possibly leaving himself open to be stumped (or run
>> > out, would have been interesting had the keeper hit the stumps).
>> How do you figure? You can't be stumped from a no ball.
>> Wog
>(which is why I included run out)
>Considering Symonds advanced down the wicket and my recollection was
>that the keeper did attempt to hit the stumps, if he had hit, what
>would the outcome have been?
I'm jumping in the middle of the thread here, and so may not
understand your question properly. But if I do understand it, the
answer is given in Law 39.3. (Law 39 is the Stumped Law.)
3. Not out Stumped
(a) if the striker is not out Stumped, he is liable to be out Run out
if the conditions of Law 38 (Run out) apply, except as set out in (b)
below.
(b) The striker shall not be out Run out if he is out of his ground,
not attempting a run, and his wicket is fairly put down by the
wicket-keeper without the intervention of another member of the
fielding side, if No ball has been called.
End quote. The first time I read this new Law my eyes rolled back in
my head, but perhaps you are more acute than I. In the end I arrived
at the understanding that what the Law is saying is "If the only
reason you aren't out Stumped is because it is a no-ball, you can't be
out Run out either." That is only if the wicket-keeper alone puts
down the stumps. You can be Run out on a no-ball by any other member
of the fielding side, or by the keeper after another member of the
fielding side has touched the ball, regardless of whether you are
attempting a run or not. This is a change from the old Law that said
the striker couldn't be Run out on a No ball if he wasn't attempting a
run. Now he can be Run out on a No ball, attempting a run or not, but
he has to be doing something more than what would be a stumping if it
were not a no-ball.
This may not immediately make sense to you--or maybe it will--but if
you think about it a bit you will see that it is only fair. If you
can't be stumped on a no-ball, how can you be fairly out under the
exact same circumstances just by calling it a runout instead of a
stumping?
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
by