Sport Today

Looks like Jon Thackray pre-empted what I was going to say about the
LBW law :-)

Regarding the decision concerning the batsman in a bygone match being
given out for Unfair Play under Law 43 after holding the bails on with
both hands, the modern equivalent, Law 42 (there is no longer a Law
43), makes no such provision.  As far as I can see, these days he most
probably would be given out under Law 37 (Obstructing the Field),
Section 1 (Wilful Obstruction) which states:

"Either batsman, on appeal, shall be out Obstructing the Field if he
wilfully obstructs the opposite side by word or action."

I think that holding the bails on with both hands as the ball is being
bowled could just about be construed as a wilful obstruction to the
bowler's attempt to break the wicket by fair and accepted means of play.
:-)

Incidentally, my 1988 copy of "Cricket Umpiring and Scoring" (the
official textbook of the Association of Cricket Umpires) by Tom Smith
MBE says, in its discussion of Law 35 (L.B.W.), that:

"Of the ten Laws dealing with the ways in which a Batsman may be out,
none causes more worry to Umpires and Players than L.B.W."  As it also
seems to create a deal of consternation amongst cricket fans world-wide
(especially when their team has just lost a Test series :-), I guess I
can't disagree too much.

Note: Ten Laws.  However, in its discussion of Law 2, Section 9, this
book also deals with:

"...in addition to the normal methods of dismissal, the voluntary
retirement 'Retired out'..."

So while there are ten Laws which specifically deal with the normal
ways of getting out, Law 2 definitely provides for another in one of
its sub-sections, making a total of eleven possible methods of dis-
missal.  I think I'll rest my case now.

<Alt>-<J> England to win the Ashes 6-0 <Alt>-<J> :-D

-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wheeler, Motorola Ltd., Camberley, Surrey, England

| So while there are ten Laws which specifically deal with the normal
| ways of getting out, Law 2 definitely provides for another in one of
| its sub-sections, making a total of eleven possible methods of dis-
| missal.  I think I'll rest my case now.

Retiring (unhurt) is not being dismissed - "dismiss" is an active
verb, implies that someone does it to you, which is the case in
all the 10 ways of being dismissed, its done to the batsman by
the fielding side - retiring is just deciding you've had enough and
leaving...

Retiring is no more being dismissed than quiting your job is being fired.

There are 10 methods of being dismissed.

kre

|> Retiring (unhurt) is not being dismissed - "dismiss" is an active
|> verb, implies that someone does it to you, which is the case in
|> all the 10 ways of being dismissed, its done to the batsman by
|> the fielding side - retiring is just deciding you've had enough and
|> leaving...
|>
|> Retiring is no more being dismissed than quiting your job is being fired.
|>
|> There are 10 methods of being dismissed.

Speaking of "retiring", around the turn of the century  there  was an
incident when a particular player walked (in county cricket).  In their
enthusiasm someone appealed, and the umpire said "Not Out" and instructed
the batsman to return (more on this later) -- anyway, the player
insisted that he was out while the umpire was equally sure that he wasn;t.
Anyway, this very honest player just continued his walk which had been
rudely interrupted by the umpire and the mode of dismissal reaad --
"Retired -- thinking he was out"!!!

As for recalling the batsman, I don;t have the rulebook handy, but if
the batsman is walking and a fielder appeals and the umpire is of the
opinion that the batsman is not out, it is his *duty* to instruct the
batsman to continue playing.  This actually happened when I was
umpiring --- I was umpiring at square leg and the batsman pushed the ball
straight to a fielder and set off for an impossible single -- the
fielder calmly relayed the ball in with the batsman at mid pitch and
the keeper whipped off the bails.  The dejected batsman started walking
back when the keeper appealed in his enthusiasm -- unfortunately, his
enthusiam had been somewhat unrestrained earlier as well. and he had managed
to knock a bail off with his pad before the throw had come in and
I declared the batsman not out.

Luckily, his trot back to the pavillion had brought him back to safety again;
but what would have been the correct ruling had he still been out
of his ground and had a player pulled an entire stump out?  As he was in,
this point didn;t come up thankfully.  

Also, what if he had run back after the throw in and then set off for the
pavillion thinking he was out -- I imagine this would be a case of
dead ball (as the incident on the last Aussie tour to WI proved)

|> kre

Bharat
--

Learning Systems Department, Siemens Corporate Research
US Mail: 755 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540
Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F) (609)452-0227(H)

| As for recalling the batsman, I don;t have the rulebook handy, but if
| the batsman is walking and a fielder appeals and the umpire is of the
| opinion that the batsman is not out, it is his *duty* to instruct the
| batsman to continue playing.

I don't think so, not quite, Law 27.4 says the umpire shall "intervene"
but it doesn't actyally say what that means ... but I don't see how he
can possibly force the batsman to continue batting.   He can instruct
the scorers to record the batsman as "retired" if that's appropriate.

| This actually happened when I was
| umpiring --- I was umpiring at square leg and the batsman pushed the ball
| straight to a fielder and set off for an impossible single -- the
| fielder calmly relayed the ball in with the batsman at mid pitch and
| the keeper whipped off the bails.  The dejected batsman started walking
| back when the keeper appealed in his enthusiasm -- unfortunately, his
| enthusiam had been somewhat unrestrained earlier as well. and he had managed
| to knock a bail off with his pad before the throw had come in and
| I declared the batsman not out.

I assume you mean "had managaed to knock both bails off with his pads"
or "out" would have certainly been correct.

| Luckily, his trot back to the pavillion had brought him back to safety again;
| but what would have been the correct ruling had he still been out
| of his ground and had a player pulled an entire stump out?  As he was in,
| this point didn;t come up thankfully.  

Would have been out, the ball is not dead on an unsuccessful appeal. (23.4(c))

| Also, what if he had run back after the throw in and then set off for the
| pavillion thinking he was out -- I imagine this would be a case of
| dead ball (as the incident on the last Aussie tour to WI proved)

This is a pretty unlikely case ... getting back into his ground, then
deciding, by himself, that he's out, without waiting for the umpire
isn't all that likely...

It looks as if it might be a case for 27.4, but its not quite the same
as Jones' case in the WI (there he couldn't be run out, as that was a no
ball, and the striker can't be run out from a no ball unless he attempts
a run).   (Law 38.2)

But once the batsman has attempted a run, and in any case if its not a
no ball, then he can be run out, and until the ball is dead, he should
remain in his ground (other than if necessary to avoid injury), so I'd
say in that case he'd be out too unless the ball was considered dead after
the batsman had returned to his crease (not that I'd worry much about this
actually happening).

kre

| I don't think so, not quite, Law 27.4 ...

Every time I said 27.4 I should have said 27.5 (off by one...)

kre