On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:13:02 +1100, "The Wog" <[my org
>> > 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?
>> Makes perfect sense as usual, Ron.
>> Do you have any thoughts on why you can't be given out in such an
>> instance? I can't see any logical reason why you can't be stumped
>> on a no-ball, yet can be stumped on a wide.
>Way it's been explained to me is that a wide isn't considered "unfair" in
>the sense of a bowler taking unfair advantage (throwing, bowling from too
>close, "dangerous and unfair" bowling, unfair field placement etc. It's
Right. When a bowler makes an unfair delivery this increases the
chances of the striker's getting out unfairly from that delivery.
Therefore the striker is immunized from any form of dismissal that
results from the delivery ("that results from the delivery" = "for
which the bowler gets credit"). Now of course in some sense of the
word "fairly" a batsman may get out fairly from an unfair delivery.
The bowler oversteps the crease by 2mm, but delivers quite the same
ball he would have delivered from 4mm further back, the striker plays
the same shot he would have played to that fair delivery, and delivers
the ball to second slip. In one case the batsman is out caught. In
the other case the batsman is not out, assuming that the umpire called
and signalled No ball. You can't really say that in this particular
case the bowler derived any unfair advantage that arguably should
nullify the catch. But we don't decide these things case-by-case, we
have general rules. And the general rule is that a no-ball is an
unfair delivery and the wicket cannot fall by any way that is credited
to the bowler. That a particular no-ball may not give an unfair
advantage does not discredit the applicability of the general rule.
Take it easy,