QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Kalyan Sundhar P1 » Fri, 29 Apr 1994 21:06:30


Quote:

> Sorry Guys,
>    I am sorry about my last posting about a question.  I think their
> was some problem with our newsgroup server.  I am posting my question
> again.
>    In the Sharjah cup final Wasim Akram bowled an over in which he
> didnot give any runs but he bowled a No Ball.  The commentrator said
>  it was a Maiden Over but when we saw the statistics there was no
> Maiden over listed for Waseem. My question then becomes general
> "Is the over is called Maiden if the bowler bowls a No or Wide ball
> in the over.  Also does those runs also go into bowlers runs total
> or not?"

No, the over is not a maiden.

Quote:
>    Please i need a reliable answer

A no-ball and wide are a part of the bowler's figures. However, a bye and
leg-bye aren't.

So if an over had 1 no-ball, 1 wide, 1 bye and 1 leg bye: The bowler's
figures for that over will be 1-0-2-* (Over-Maiden-Runs-Wickets).

Quote:
> Thanks in advance.
> masroor

Later...
Kalyan.
 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Masroor Mal » Fri, 29 Apr 1994 02:42:55

Sorry Guys,
        I am sorry about my last posting about a question.  I think their
was some problem with our newsgroup server.  I am posting my question
again.
        In the Sharjah cup final Wasim Akram bowled an over in which he
didnot give any runs but he bowled a No Ball.  The commentrator said
 it was a Maiden Over but when we saw the statistics there was no
Maiden over listed for Waseem. My question then becomes general
"Is the over is called Maiden if the bowler bowls a No or Wide ball
in the over.  Also does those runs also go into bowlers runs total
or not?"
        Please i need a reliable answer
Thanks in advance.
masroor

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by John Ha » Sat, 30 Apr 1994 04:40:52

Up until a few years ago, no-balls and wides were not debited against
the bowlers, but now (more logically) they are.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       |  Don't talk to me about life."
  Cranleigh, Surrey, England           |

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Srinivas Go » Fri, 29 Apr 1994 23:57:58

--
|> Sorry Guys,
|>   I am sorry about my last posting about a question.  I think their
|> was some problem with our newsgroup server.  I am posting my question
|> again.
|>   In the Sharjah cup final Wasim Akram bowled an over in which he
|> didnot give any runs but he bowled a No Ball.  The commentrator said
|>  it was a Maiden Over but when we saw the statistics there was no
|> Maiden over listed for Waseem. My question then becomes general
|> "Is the over is called Maiden if the bowler bowls a No or Wide ball
|> in the over.  Also does those runs also go into bowlers runs total
|> or not?"
|>   Please i need a reliable answer
|> Thanks in advance.
|> masroor

If the bowler bowls a No Ball or a Wide Ball then the over is not a maiden over.
These are the only two types of extras which go into bowler's tally.

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by J.D.Wats » Fri, 29 Apr 1994 03:17:02


Quote:

>    In the Sharjah cup final Wasim Akram bowled an over in which he
>didnot give any runs but he bowled a No Ball.  The commentrator said
> it was a Maiden Over but when we saw the statistics there was no
>Maiden over listed for Waseem. My question then becomes general
>"Is the over is called Maiden if the bowler bowls a No or Wide ball
>in the over.  Also does those runs also go into bowlers runs total
>or not?"

It is a maiden over in the classical sense, i.e. that no runs were
scored by the batsman in it.

However it is not a "bowling maiden" because a run goes againt the
bowlers name....

CMJ and Baxter did a good discussion on this on TMS during the
final test WI v ENG

hope this helps...

Goochie

--
________________________________________________________________________
| John Watson       | If your Professor wrote it, it's as near to the  |
| Keynes college    | truth as you will ever need to get.....          |
| UKC Canterbury UK |                                                  |

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Sandeep N Gup » Sun, 01 May 1994 05:14:58

Quote:

>If the bowler bowls a No Ball or a Wide Ball then the over is not a maiden over.
>These are the only two types of extras which go into bowler's tally.

I have a related question,

if on a wide ball, the keeper misfields and lets the ball go past him for
a four, i know that it is treated as 4 wides. so do these 4 runs go to the
bowlers tally ?
what if a similar thing happens on a no-ball ?

Thanks in advance,

-Sandeep Gupta

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by s_pat » Sun, 01 May 1994 05:43:34


: if on a wide ball, the keeper misfields and lets the ball go past him for
: a four, i know that it is treated as 4 wides. so do these 4 runs go to the
: bowlers tally ?
: what if a similar thing happens on a no-ball ?

   In neither case, the runs are charged to the bowler's account. They
        are counted as extras. In case of the wk missing on a no ball,
        it's counted as byes.

   Shailesh

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Vishal Mis » Sun, 01 May 1994 07:25:32

    Sandeep> if on a wide ball, the keeper misfields and lets the ball
    Sandeep> go past him for a four, i know that it is treated as 4
    Sandeep> wides. so do these 4 runs go to the bowlers tally ?  what

Yeah. The fault lies with the bowler for putting it so wide that the
keeper couldn't field it!

    Sandeep> if a similar thing happens on a no-ball ?

This is interesting. The team will get four extras, they won't go to
the bowler. However, if the bowler does not give away any runs on the
other balls, would that count as a maiden?
                                           -Vishal

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by David Wheel » Fri, 29 Apr 1994 17:31:55

Quote:

>   In the Sharjah cup final Wasim Akram bowled an over in which he
>didnot give any runs but he bowled a No Ball.  The commentrator said
> it was a Maiden Over but when we saw the statistics there was no
>Maiden over listed for Waseem. My question then becomes general
>"Is the over is called Maiden if the bowler bowls a No or Wide ball
>in the over.  Also does those runs also go into bowlers runs total
>or not?"

Wides and no-balls did not count against the bowler until two or three
years ago, then the law was changed (anyone remember exactly when?), the
thinking behind this being that these deliveries (or rather, non-
deliveries) are avoidable and the bowler should therefore be penalised
for them.  The commentator was obviously thinking of the situation
prevailing before the law-change.

So the answers to your questions, under the current law, are:

1. No, the over is not a maiden if it contains a wide or a no-ball.
2. Yes, the extra run counts against the bowler's incurred runs total.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wheeler     | "It's a funny kind of month, October.  For the
Motorola Ltd.        |  really keen cricket fan, it's when you realise
Basingstoke          |  that your wife left you in May." - Dennis Norden
Hampshire            |
England              | "Excreta tauri astutos confundit"

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Ron Knig » Mon, 02 May 1994 13:52:00


Quote:
>if on a wide ball, the keeper misfields and lets the ball go past him for
>a four, i know that it is treated as 4 wides. so do these 4 runs go to the
>bowlers tally ?
>what if a similar thing happens on a no-ball ?

These questions have been answered correctly already, but there have also
been several incorrect answers posted, so I don't know whether anyone who
wasn't sure about the answers before is any better off now.  

1.  In the past, wides and no-balls have simply been counted as extras,
    and not included in the bowler's tally.  This is no longer the case.
    They are still extras, since they aren't included in the batsman's
    tally, but they are counted against the bowler.  It was his bowling
    that caused the score, after all.  This, by the way, is not a change
    in the Laws, which do not deal with how bowlers' averages are
    calculated; it is a change in scoring practice.  I would assume
    that this change is a change in the ICC regulations for first-class
    matches, but I don't actually know that.

2.  Extras are tallied as byes or leg-byes only on balls that have not
    previously been called no-balls or wides.  A misfielded ball that
    crosses the boundary is scored as four no-balls if no ball was
    called and the ball didn't hit the bat.  If wide was called, and
    the same thing happens, it is scored as four wides.  Runs occurring
    on a no-ball can be scored only as no-balls (if not played) or
    as runs credited to the batsman (if played).  The same is true
    of wides.

3.  In all cases in which 1 or 4 no-balls or wides are scored, those
    runs count against the bowler's tally, according to present
    practice.  This was not always the case, but it is now.

4.  And by the way, although boundary 4s are possible on extras,
    boundary 6s are not.  The Law specifically uses the word "hits"
    in describing how 6s are scored.  Thus it is not a 6 (though it
    is a 4) if a bowler should bowl a ball so high that it clears
    the boundary in the air.  Nobody asked about this, but I just
    thought I'd throw it in.

And to the other rules question that has also been answered correctly
(and incorrectly) recently:  If all the stumps are out of the ground,
the fielding side is allowed to remake the wicket while the ball is
in play for the purpose of breaking it down again.  This would
require only replacing one stump and having the ball in hand to
knock it down or pull it out again.  If the fielding side didn't
know this, I suppose the batsmen could run until they drop from
exhaustion.  The original question asked whether they could run
until stumps, but in fact you can't have "time" called while the
batsmen are still running and the ball is still in play, can you?

I suppose if the fielding side doesn't know about re-making the
wicket they could always throw the ball out of bounds to stop
the running.  Or call "lost ball".  Or field the ball with their
caps (Illegal Fielding) or stuff it down the Umpire's shirt.

Enough.  It's getting late.
--

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill  
I can't speak for UNC-CH, and UNC-CH can't speak for me.
It's better for both of us.

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Chris Stri » Wed, 04 May 1994 10:35:54


|>
|> : if on a wide ball, the keeper misfields and lets the ball go past him for
|> : a four, i know that it is treated as 4 wides. so do these 4 runs go to the
|> : bowlers tally ?
|> : what if a similar thing happens on a no-ball ?
|>
|>
|>    In neither case, the runs are charged to the bowler's account. They
|>   are counted as extras. In case of the wk missing on a no ball,
|>   it's counted as byes.
|>
|>    Shailesh

If the wide ball goes for 4, then it is 4 wides and they *DO* go on to the
bowlers tally. Exactly the same for No-Balls.
The No-Balls and Wides occurred BEFORE the "byes" occurred ==> they are not byes.

Then the bowler stares viciously at the wicketkeeper and (if he's Merv Hughes or
Shane Warne) curses/spits/makes a "gesture" etc...

:)

Chris

P.S: Does anybody know whether the new ruling about 2 runs being the penalty for
wides and no-balls has come into effect yet. I know they play it in county
cricket, but I don't think it has come into NZ yet?

Is it for both wides AND no-balls? or is it just one of the two?
--
"....was dismissed for 5, and umpire*** Brain having no hesitation in
 putting his hand up.....and asking if he too could be dismissed for five,
 so he could go and take a leak. Quite unusual that, to see an umpire leaving
 his post, but it's a funny old game cricket, and anything can happen....."

 
 
 

QUESTION!! POSTED AGAIN!! CORRECTED !! NEED RELIABLE ANSWER!!

Post by Chris Stri » Thu, 05 May 1994 09:08:12


|>
|>
|>     Sandeep> if a similar thing happens on a no-ball ?
|>
|> This is interesting. The team will get four extras, they won't go to
|> the bowler. However, if the bowler does not give away any runs on the
|> other balls, would that count as a maiden?
|>                                      -Vishal
|>
|>

I'm pretty sure the runs DO count against the bowler. Why shouldn't they?
He bowled the no-ball, and it the act of the no-ball (assuming we are talking
about a return crease, or front foot popping crease no-ball) occurred BEFORE the
'keeper let the "byes" through.

I hope Mr Shepherd is still reading r.s.c to finally clear this up once and for
all.

Chris
--
Don't play that song, that Achy Breaky song,
It's just the most annoying song I know.
And if you play that song, that Achy Breaky song,
I might blow up my radio!                           ----- Weird Al