The Jones run-out had a precedent
Rodney
1882 Test Match which stirred Fred Spofforth into doing the mindboggling
and bowling out England for just 77 to clinch for Australia perhaps the
most celebrated victory in all of the game's great history.
The only recorded sentiments which W.G. had about the issue (from what I
have seen, at least) were given to Lord Hawke, who was kind enough to
recount them in his autobiography. "I taught the lad something," Grace
is supposed to have told him.
One of the umpires in that Test was Luke Greenwood. Thankfully, we have
a bit more on what he thought about the whole thing: "There was an
umpiring incident in the match which I think I am the first to mention.
It was a decision given by Bob Thoms. In the Australians' second innings
W. L. Murdoch and S. P. Jones were batting. Mr Murdoch hit the ball a
little on the leg-side, and the Hon. A. Lyttelton, who was keeping
wicket for England, ran for it and threw it in to Peate, who was at
short-slip. The run was made safely enough, and Peate made no attempt to
take up the ball. Mr Jones thereupon walked out of his ground to pat the
wicket where the ball had risen at the previous delivery, and W. G.
Grace coolly picked up the ball, walked to the wicket, dislodged the
bails, and cried, 'How's that?' Thoms, who was the umpire appealed to,
gave him 'out,' and out Mr Jones had to go. Mr Murdoch, on seeing what
had occurred, remarked, 'That's very sharp practice, W. G.'; and to this
day I think it was. Had I been appealed to I should not have given Jones
out, for the ball was to all intents and purposes dead, and there had
been no attempt to make a second run."
***
Both Greenwood and Grace, in fact, had seen it all before -- just over
nine years ago in Coventry.
It was 11 August 1873, W.G. Grace's first and only cricketing stopover
at Coventry. The 25-year-old had taken charge of a United South of
England XI (which included his late brother and Gloucestershire
team-mate Fred) for a three-day game against a Coventry and District XXII.
Greenwood was amongst the few professionals in the local XXII, which
comprised mostly schoolmasters, clergymen and former public schoolboys.
Greenwood and Lapworth -- does anyone have anything more with which to
identify him better -- shaped the central part of the home team's
bowling line-up.
Crowds flocked to the local cricket ground, some out of eagerness to see
what they hoped would be a very tight encounter. Most, however, were
paying their sixpence exclusively for the privilege of seeing W.G. Grace
at the wicket, and there was certainly a keyed-up murmur which went
'round the ground as the great man strode out to open the batting on the
opening morning.
It took Grace about an hour to compile thirteen runs, and then he was
caught by Gibbs, a schoolmaster, off the bowling of Greenwood. Fred
Grace, meanwhile (as he would seven years later in the inaugural English
Test Match), did even worse, falling for a duck, and the United South XI
was all out for 79.
Leading from the front, W.G. responded in ideal fashion, taking fourteen
wickets for 41 and playing the foremost part in the removal of the local
XXII for just 71. This gave the visitors an eight-run lead as they
commenced their second innings. On this occasion, W.G. fared better,
getting to 29 before being caught and bowled by Lapworth, but, again,
his team-mates capitulated -- all out for a mere 53 (not even twice over
the tally of their eminent captain). A triumph for the home side, within
two days, was most certainly in the offing.
With the last-wicket pair was at the crease, however, one ball would
constitute enough to settle the deal for either side. Presently, the
batsmen set off on another run off W.G.. While crossing, though, Jimmy
Holmes, one of the two Coventry batsmen, unexpectedly lost the belt
which was holding up his slacks.
The belt fell to ground right in the middle of the wicket, but Holmes
was wise enough to leave it alone for the time being. He first got
himself over to the sanctity of the striker's end, where he stood and
waited for the incoming throw to arrive finish up the wicketkeeper's
gloves. When it did, Holmes promptly set down his bat and sauntered up
to the wicket to retrieve his belt.
Never one to miss a trick, however, W.G. bellowed instantly for his
wicketkeeper to remove the bails. This done, he gave a loud appeal to
umpire John Cribdon, who (just like Bob Thoms nine years later) upheld it.
Holmes, therefore, had been most controversially run out, and the
Coventry and District XXII had lost this remarkable match by just one run.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
My Blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Rodney
touching up. I've popped it into Word, and that seems to have done the
trick...
It was W.G.'s none-too-courteous act in running out Sammy Jones in the
1882 Test Match which stirred Fred Spofforth to do the mindboggling and
bowl England out for just 77, clinching for Australia perhaps the most
celebrated victory in all of the game's great history.
The only recorded sentiments which W.G. had about the issue (from what I
have seen, at least) were given to Lord Hawke, who was kind enough to
recount them in his autobiography. "I taught the lad something," Grace
is supposed to have told him.
One of the umpires in that Test was Luke Greenwood. Thankfully, we have
a bit more on what he thought about the whole thing: "There was an
umpiring incident in the match which I think I am the first to mention.
It was a decision given by Bob Thoms. In the Australians' second innings
W. L. Murdoch and S. P. Jones were batting. Mr Murdoch hit the ball a
little on the leg-side, and the Hon. A. Lyttelton, who was keeping
wicket for England, ran for it and threw it in to Peate, who was at
short-slip. The run was made safely enough, and Peate made no attempt to
take up the ball. Mr Jones thereupon walked out of his ground to pat the
wicket where the ball had risen at the previous delivery, and W. G.
Grace coolly picked up the ball, walked to the wicket, dislodged the
bails, and cried, 'How's that?' Thoms, who was the umpire appealed to,
gave him 'out,' and out Mr Jones had to go. Mr Murdoch, on seeing what
had occurred, remarked, 'That's very sharp practice, W. G.'; and to this
day I think it was. Had I been appealed to I should not have given Jones
out, for the ball was to all intents and purposes dead, and there had
been no attempt to make a second run."
***
Luke Greenwood had, in fact, seen it all before, just over nine years
ago in Coventry — and on that occasion, too, had W.G. Grace been involved.
It was 11 August 1873, Grace’s first (and, at the time of the 1882 Test
Match, only) cricketing stopover at Coventry. The 25-year-old had taken
charge of a United South of England XI (which included his late brother
and Gloucestershire team-mate Fred) for a three-day game against a
Coventry and District XXII.
Greenwood was amongst the few professionals in the local XXII, which
comprised mostly schoolmasters, clergymen and former public schoolboys.
Greenwood and Lapworth shaped the central part of the home team’s
bowling line-up.
Crowds flocked to the local cricket ground, some of them out of
eagerness to see what they hoped would be a very tight encounter, but
most were paying their sixpence exclusively for the privilege of seeing
W.G. Grace in action, and there was a keyed-up murmur around the ground
as the great man strode out to open his side’s innings on the opening
morning.
It took Grace about an hour to compile thirteen runs, before being
caught by Gibbs, a schoolmaster, off the bowling of Greenwood. Fred
Grace, meanwhile (as he would seven years later in the inaugural English
Test Match), fared even worse, falling for a duck as the United South XI
were bowled out for 79.
Leading from the front, W.G. responded in ideal fashion, taking fourteen
wickets for 41 and playing the foremost role in the removal of the local
XXII for just 71. This gave the visitors an eight-run lead as they
commenced their second innings. W.G. fared better on this occasion,
getting to 29 before Lapworth caught and bowled him. Again, however, his
team-mates capitulated — all out for a mere 53, not even twice the tally
of their eminent captain. A triumph for the home side, within two days,
was most certainly seen to be in the offing.
With the last-wicket pair at the crease, however, one ball would be
enough to seal the deal for either side. Presently, the batsmen set off
on another run off W.G.’s bowling, but, while crossing, Jimmy Holmes,
one of the two Coventry batsmen, unexpectedly lost the belt holding up
his slacks.
It fell to ground right in the middle of the pitch, but Holmes left it
alone for the time being, first getting himself over to the sanctity of
the striker's end, where he stood and waited for the incoming throw to
finish up in the wicketkeeper's gloves. When it did, Holmes promptly set
down his bat and sauntered up the wicket to retrieve his mislaid strap.
W.G. bellowed instantly for his wicketkeeper to remove the bails and,
this done, gave a loud appeal to umpire John Cribdon, who (just like Bob
Andrew McGee
"Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:466bc947$0$16396$8826...@free.teranews.com...
The point that the ball was dead before the attempted run out seems, by
modern standards at least, to be blindingly obvious. Were the Laws
materially different then? Or was it just that WG could get away with
murder?
Rodney
> The point that the ball was dead before the attempted run out seems, by
> modern standards at least, to be blindingly obvious. Were the Laws
> materially different then? Or was it just that WG could get away with
> murder?
Then as now, Andrew, the ball was not dead until it had left the
wicketkeeper's gloves. W.G. went against the spirit rather than letter
of the Laws.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Andrew McGee wrote:
>
>> The point that the ball was dead before the attempted run out seems, by
>> modern standards at least, to be blindingly obvious. Were the Laws
>> materially different then? Or was it just that WG could get away with
>> murder?
>
>Then as now, Andrew, the ball was not dead until it had left the
>wicketkeeper's gloves. W.G. went against the spirit rather than letter
>of the Laws.
I'm not sure about then, but you are quite wrong about now. Under the
present Laws the ball becomes dead when finally settled in the
wicketkeeper's hands, not when it subsequently leaves those hands. An
umpire would surely rule that the ball was dead when Holmes removed
his gloves under the Laws of today.
If the Laws were the same, the question would be whether the ball was
"finally settled" or still in play because there was still a chance of
running a batsman out.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Rodney
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:10:08 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> Andrew McGee wrote:
>>
>>> The point that the ball was dead before the attempted run out seems, by
>>> modern standards at least, to be blindingly obvious. Were the Laws
>>> materially different then? Or was it just that WG could get away with
>>> murder?
>> Then as now, Andrew, the ball was not dead until it had left the
>> wicketkeeper's gloves. W.G. went against the spirit rather than letter
>> of the Laws.
>
> I'm not sure about then, but you are quite wrong about now. Under the
> present Laws the ball becomes dead when finally settled in the
> wicketkeeper's hands, not when it subsequently leaves those hands. An
> umpire would surely rule that the ball was dead when Holmes removed
> his gloves under the Laws of today.
If that's so, Mike, I really do tremble at the thought of the number of
illegitimate run-outs that have been given over the years and which are
still given today. If the ball, as you suggest, is dead as soon as it
winds up in the 'keeper's gloves, how on Earth is he supposed to break
them when the batsman *is* attempting a run?
Andy Guthrie
Under the
>> present Laws the ball becomes dead when finally settled in the
>> wicketkeeper's hands, not when it subsequently leaves those hands. An
>> umpire would surely rule that the ball was dead when Holmes removed
>> his gloves under the Laws of today.
>
> If that's so, Mike, I really do tremble at the thought of the number of
> illegitimate run-outs that have been given over the years and which are
> still given today. If the ball, as you suggest, is dead as soon as it
> winds up in the 'keeper's gloves, how on Earth is he supposed to break
> them when the batsman *is* attempting a run?
"Finally settled", not "as soon as".
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:10:08 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>>> Andrew McGee wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point that the ball was dead before the attempted run out seems, by
>>>> modern standards at least, to be blindingly obvious. Were the Laws
>>>> materially different then? Or was it just that WG could get away with
>>>> murder?
>>> Then as now, Andrew, the ball was not dead until it had left the
>>> wicketkeeper's gloves. W.G. went against the spirit rather than letter
>>> of the Laws.
>>
>> I'm not sure about then, but you are quite wrong about now. Under the
>> present Laws the ball becomes dead when finally settled in the
>> wicketkeeper's hands, not when it subsequently leaves those hands. An
>> umpire would surely rule that the ball was dead when Holmes removed
>> his gloves under the Laws of today.
>
>If that's so, Mike, I really do tremble at the thought of the number of
>illegitimate run-outs that have been given over the years and which are
>still given today. If the ball, as you suggest, is dead as soon as it
>winds up in the 'keeper's gloves, how on Earth is he supposed to break
>them when the batsman *is* attempting a run?
I did not say "as soon as". Those are your words, not mine. This
practice of having friendly discussions with the Higgs must be
affecting your debating.
The words in the Law are "finally settled in the wicketkeeper's or
bowler's hands", which I quoted most of, the bowler being irrelevant
to the present discussion.
In the Holmes case, I rather understood that Holmes was reasonable in
concluding that the ball was settled and that he could safely wander
about. Had he been standing there watching the keeper and danced out
as soon as the keeper caught the ball, I'd have had no sympathy with
him at all.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Rodney
Sorry. I misread that. Even so, it requires a helluva lot of
interpretation, doesn't it?
Rodney
I did not say that you did, Mike, but I can see that the implication is
definitely there. My bad. Big mistake. Sorry.
That said, is a ball not "finally settled" "as soon as" it gets into the
wicketkeeper's gloves? How much moving about could the thing possibly do
while it was in there, for goodness sake?
> Those are your words, not mine.
Indeed.
> This
> practice of having friendly discussions with the Higgs must be
> affecting your debating.
Admittedly, I haven't been at my sharpest lately, but that's probably
due more to the overwhelming trauma brought on by these exams that I'm
writing than any malignant influence that Ken Higgs might've had.
> The words in the Law are "finally settled in the wicketkeeper's or
> bowler's hands", which I quoted most of, the bowler being irrelevant
> to the present discussion.
>
> In the Holmes case, I rather understood that Holmes was reasonable in
> concluding that the ball was settled and that he could safely wander
> about. Had he been standing there watching the keeper and danced out
> as soon as the keeper caught the ball, I'd have had no sympathy with
> him at all.
Thou hath a point, Mike. According to Law 30 of the 1829 Code of the
Laws of Cricket (which, alas, is as close as I can get to 1873), "When
the ball has been in the bowler's or wicket-keeper's hands, it is
considered as no longer in play, and the strikers need not keep within
their ground till the umpire has called 'Play'; but if the player go out
of his ground with an intent to run before the ball be delivered, the
bowler may put him out."
Again, though, it does leave a lot up to interpretation, doesn't it? I
don't know how much the Laws have changed since 1829, but it has always
(evidently wrongly) been my understanding that the ball is dead from the
moment it *leaves* the wicketkeeper's hands.
The title of this thread, however, is now patently erroneous. Holmes
probably ought not to have been given out, whereas Sammy Jones
definitely *was* out: it was the wicketkeeper (the Honourable Alfred
Lyttelton) who ran off after the ball and threw it in, and W.G. Grace
(neither wicketkeeper nor bowler) in whose hands the ball had come to rest.
David North
In the Law quoted above, that could be inferred from 'has been'.
The current law also says "the ball shall be considered to be dead when it
is clear to the umpire at the bowler's end that the fielding side and both
batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play", and "whether the
ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide."
> The title of this thread, however, is now patently erroneous. Holmes
> probably ought not to have been given out, whereas Sammy Jones definitely
> *was* out: it was the wicketkeeper (the Honourable Alfred Lyttelton) who
> ran off after the ball and threw it in, and W.G. Grace (neither
> wicketkeeper nor bowler) in whose hands the ball had come to rest.
But the ball had been in the wicket-keeper's hands ...
--
David North
Test Career Ratings: http://www.lanefarm.plus.com
Rodney
> "Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:466c1334$0$1468$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> Thou hath a point, Mike. According to Law 30 of the 1829 Code of the Laws
>> of Cricket (which, alas, is as close as I can get to 1873), "When the ball
>> has been in the bowler's or wicket-keeper's hands, it is considered as no
>> longer in play, and the strikers need not keep within their ground till
>> the umpire has called 'Play'; but if the player go out of his ground with
>> an intent to run before the ball be delivered, the bowler may put him
>> out."
>>
>> Again, though, it does leave a lot up to interpretation, doesn't it? I
>> don't know how much the Laws have changed since 1829, but it has always
>> (evidently wrongly) been my understanding that the ball is dead from the
>> moment it *leaves* the wicketkeeper's hands.
>
> In the Law quoted above, that could be inferred from 'has been'.
Good point. How I despise these vague excuses for laws, so open to
alternative construal!
> The current law also says "the ball shall be considered to be dead when it
> is clear to the umpire at the bowler's end that the fielding side and both
> batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play" and "whether the
> ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide."
Basically, it's still indistinct and open to being taken to mean totally
different things by different individuals -- not much progress for 178
years, I reckon, except that the rule is now at least quite honest and
shameless about its enigmatic nature.
>> The title of this thread, however, is now patently erroneous. Holmes
>> probably ought not to have been given out, whereas Sammy Jones definitely
>> *was* out: it was the wicketkeeper (the Honourable Alfred Lyttelton) who
>> ran off after the ball and threw it in, and W.G. Grace (neither
>> wicketkeeper nor bowler) in whose hands the ball had come to rest.
>
> But the ball had been in the wicket-keeper's hands ...
So, although Lyttelton picked the ball up at midwicket, with the batsmen
taking a run, it ought to have been dead? Cricket's law-makers have
never been particularly logical, have they?
Bob Williams
wrote:
Rodney
Having umpired a bit, I can tell you that it is pretty easy to
interpret this law. Basically, the wicket keeper has to be given an
opportunity to run out the batsmen once he gathers the ball. He needs
to act fairly promptly - he cannot just walk up to the wicket waiting
for the batsman to wander out of his crease, but if as he takes the
ball he sees the batsman out of his crease, he can have a go at
running him out (or stumping) by throwing or trying to get to the
stumps.
"Finally settled" means that he has no longer this opportunity.
It is where when it is obvious to all that the batsman has left his
crease to talk to his partner or to "farm" the pitch, and the wicket
keeper then decides to try to run him out that all the fuss starts.
Most experienced umpires (and for that matter wicket keepers) know the
score, and it rarely eventuates into anything.
I am not sure of the facts in the case in this discussion, but it
sounds like it might have been one of those cases.
Bob
dechucka
> Andrew McGee wrote:
>
>> The point that the ball was dead before the attempted run out seems, by
>> modern standards at least, to be blindingly obvious. Were the Laws
>> materially different then? Or was it just that WG could get away with
>> murder?
>
> Then as now, Andrew, the ball was not dead until it had left the
> wicketkeeper's gloves. W.G. went against the spirit rather than letter of
> the Laws.
that is incorrect. The ball is dead only when everybody ( in the umpires
opinion ) feels it is dead, well under modern laws
dechucka
"dechucka" <dech...@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
news:466c7ff8$0$22427$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
that was badly put better to read Law 23
kenh...@hotmail.com
> > tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >> Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >>>> Andrew McGee wrote:
>
> >>>>> The point that the ball was dead before the attempted run out seems, by
> >>>>> modern standards at least, to be blindingly obvious. Were the Laws
> >>>>> materially different then? Or was it just that WG could get away with
> >>>>> murder?
> >>>> Then as now, Andrew, the ball was not dead until it had left the
> >>>> wicketkeeper's gloves. W.G. went against the spirit rather than letter
> >>>> of the Laws.
> >>> I'm not sure about then, but you are quite wrong about now. Under the
> >>> present Laws the ball becomes dead when finally settled in the
> >>> wicketkeeper's hands, not when it subsequently leaves those hands. An
> >>> umpire would surely rule that the ball was dead when Holmes removed
> >>> his gloves under the Laws of today.
> >> If that's so, Mike, I really do tremble at the thought of the number of
> >> illegitimate run-outs that have been given over the years and which are
> >> still given today. If the ball, as you suggest, is dead as soon as it
> >> winds up in the 'keeper's gloves, how on Earth is he supposed to break
> >> them when the batsman *is* attempting a run?
>
> > I did not say "as soon as".
>
> I did not say that you did, Mike, but I can see that the implication is
> definitely there. My bad. Big mistake. Sorry.
>
That's no excuse.
Mike is not one to forgive a mistake/misunderstanding, deliberate or
otherwise.
In fact he tends to believe all such instances are deliberate.
> That said, is a ball not "finally settled" "as soon as" it gets into the
> wicketkeeper's gloves? How much moving about could the thing possibly do
> while it was in there, for goodness sake?
>
At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of the more pedantic
members of the group, I agree with you.
> > Those are your words, not mine.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > This
> > practice of having friendly discussions with the Higgs must be
> > affecting your debating.
>
> Admittedly, I haven't been at my sharpest lately, but that's probably
> due more to the overwhelming trauma brought on by these exams that I'm
> writing than any malignant influence that Ken Higgs might've had.
>
I don't believe that I'm a malignant influence on anyone,
I simply say things that some people don't agree with, or don't like.
I think Bob made some comments about not coming here with the
intention of simply making everyone like you (in which case I'd merely
agree with what everyone says), I say what I feel at the time.
That's not to say I wont change my mind after some discussion.
Unlike Mike.
If you type in the word 'pompous' for a search on this group, almost
all hits will return the name
'Mike Holmans'
Higgs
dechucka
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181535605....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
pot/kettle/black
Andrew McGee
> Andy Guthrie wrote:
>> Rodney wrote:
>> Under the
>>>> present Laws the ball becomes dead when finally settled in the
>>>> wicketkeeper's hands, not when it subsequently leaves those hands. An
>>>> umpire would surely rule that the ball was dead when Holmes removed
>>>> his gloves under the Laws of today.
>>>
>>> If that's so, Mike, I really do tremble at the thought of the number of
>>> illegitimate run-outs that have been given over the years and which are
>>> still given today. If the ball, as you suggest, is dead as soon as it
>>> winds up in the 'keeper's gloves, how on Earth is he supposed to break
>>> them when the batsman *is* attempting a run?
>>
>> "Finally settled", not "as soon as".
>
> Sorry. I misread that. Even so, it requires a helluva lot of
> interpretation, doesn't it?
> --
Well, yes it does, but I have to say that I played as a wicketkeeper for
many years, and it would never have occurred to me that the ball was live
until I thew it to a fielder. Once I had the ball AND IT WAS CLEAR THAT NO
RUN WAS BEING ATTEMPTED - which is where the interpretation comes in - I
always assumed the ball was dead.
Perhaps I was wrong (though even if I was, I am still glad that I never
tried to run anyone out in those circumstances)
Andrew McGee
Rodney
It most certainly is, Bob. Thank you. Still, I'd venture to suggest that
not all umpires (and wicketkeepers) are as well-versed as yourself. Do
you remember that incident in the recent Sri Lanka-New Zealand Test series?
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
My Blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/
--
Timbo
> Still, I'd venture to suggest that
> not all umpires (and wicketkeepers) are as well-versed as yourself. Do
> you remember that incident in the recent Sri Lanka-New Zealand Test series?
Yep, I saw that. I really cannot see how the umpire gave that out.
It was clear that Murali wasn't going for a run, and what's more,
the umpire that gave it started walking towards the wicket before
the fielder had thrown the ball back.
dechucka
and an excellent decision by the umpire.
Shit don't the players at Test level know the laws
Rodney
> That's no excuse.
> Mike is not one to forgive a mistake/misunderstanding, deliberate or
> otherwise.
> In fact he tends to believe all such instances are deliberate.
Dude, what're you trying to achieve?
>> That said, is a ball not "finally settled" "as soon as" it gets into the
>> wicketkeeper's gloves? How much moving about could the thing possibly do
>> while it was in there, for goodness sake?
>
> At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of the more pedantic
> members of the group, I agree with you.
Cheers.
>>> Those are your words, not mine.
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> This
>>> practice of having friendly discussions with the Higgs must be
>>> affecting your debating.
>> Admittedly, I haven't been at my sharpest lately, but that's probably
>> due more to the overwhelming trauma brought on by these exams that I'm
>> writing than any malignant influence that Ken Higgs might've had.
>
> I don't believe that I'm a malignant influence on anyone
I didn't imply that you were, Ken. You have my apologies, though, if you
got that impression.
> I simply say things that some people don't agree with, or don't like.
> I think Bob made some comments about not coming here with the
> intention of simply making everyone like you (in which case I'd merely
> agree with what everyone says), I say what I feel at the time.
> That's not to say I wont change my mind after some discussion.
Admirable qualities to be found in any good debater.
<snipped in indignation the remainder of Higgs's self-righteous ranting>
Rodney
But would you have been so steadfast in your morals had a call emanated
from W.G.'s great beard beseeching you to do the dirties?
Rodney
Couldn't have said it better myself.
David North
They are at least a bit more careful with their wording these days. E.g. in
the 1829 law, 'the bowler may put him out' - what about the wicket-keeper?
>>> The title of this thread, however, is now patently erroneous. Holmes
>>> probably ought not to have been given out, whereas Sammy Jones
>>> definitely *was* out: it was the wicketkeeper (the Honourable Alfred
>>> Lyttelton) who ran off after the ball and threw it in, and W.G. Grace
>>> (neither wicketkeeper nor bowler) in whose hands the ball had come to
>>> rest.
>>
>> But the ball had been in the wicket-keeper's hands ...
>
> So, although Lyttelton picked the ball up at midwicket, with the batsmen
> taking a run, it ought to have been dead?
Obviously not if he disposed of the ball before the batsmen made their
ground.
kenh...@hotmail.com
> kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > That's no excuse.
> > Mike is not one to forgive a mistake/misunderstanding, deliberate or
> > otherwise.
> > In fact he tends to believe all such instances are deliberate.
>
> Dude, what're you trying to achieve?
>
Hey, sometimes I get a bit irritated by gratuitous comments about me,
especially by those who hide behind a kill file.
Probably counter-productive, because then the usual suspects will
accuse me of being the one launching the personal attacks.
But that's how I tend to react.
And, no, I didn't think you were casting me as a malign influence.
That was clearly Mike's intention.
Higgs
Andrew Dunford
"Timbo" <ti...@noreply.invalid> wrote in message
news:f4j9tt$na1$1...@news.liv.ac.uk...
I agree that the umpire walking in (to change sides for the right-handed
batsman) was unhelpful, but there is no Law that says he must stand still at
square leg.
Murali was given out because he started walking up the pitch while a return
from fine leg was still in the air on its way to the 'keeper. There can be
no question of the ball have finally settled in the 'keeper's gloves if it
hasn't even arrived yet.
That said, modern Test match umpires do seem to create part of the problem
themselves by calling 'over' prematurely. In the morning session at Old
Trafford today a ball was hit to the fieldsman at point; umpire Bowden could
clearly be heard calling over the moment the ball settled in the point
fieldsman's hands - perhaps it would be clearer if he let/required point
return the ball to the 'keeper before calling 'over'.
Either way, poor sportsmanship from McCullum in my opinion, but also very
sloppy behaviour from Muralitharan.
<snip>
Andrew
dechucka
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:5d52ftF...@mid.individual.net...
if you read law 23 that was a fair call. If in the umpire opinion everybody
considers the ball dead it is dead.
b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the umpire at
the bowler's end that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have
ceased to regard it as in play.
if the batsmaen look at the umpire with their bats in ground and the bowler
is rubbing the ball or is about to toss it to the umpire IMHO the ball is
dead
>
> Either way, poor sportsmanship from McCullum in my opinion, but also very
> sloppy behaviour from Muralitharan.
good play from McCullam and a good decision by the umpire. Murali wandered
out of his crease when the ball was not dead, brain explosion or whatever
shit happens
Rodney
That, too, had a precedent. In India in 1933/34, I believe, Amarnath
knocked up a hundred in the first Test against Jardine's touring
Englishmen. When he reached it, the Bombay masses swarmed out onto the
ground, and the immortal Indian captain Nayudu strolled down the wicket
to congratulate his partner -- even though the throw from the outfield
was still on its way to the gloves of wicketkeeper Elliot. Jardine,
although very irritated at the crowd's invasion, shook his head at
Elliot, prohibiting him from completing the run-out. This incident
contributed to Jardine's leaving India with an ironically sportsmanlike
reputation.
Rodney
Why then say, "But the ball had been in the wicket-keeper's hands ..."?
Rodney
> On Jun 11, 10:36 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> That's no excuse.
>>> Mike is not one to forgive a mistake/misunderstanding, deliberate or
>>> otherwise.
>>> In fact he tends to believe all such instances are deliberate.
>> Dude, what're you trying to achieve?
>>
>
> Hey, sometimes I get a bit irritated by gratuitous comments about me
Naturally.
> Probably counter-productive
No, it's *definitely* counter-productive.
> because then the usual suspects will
> accuse me of being the one launching the personal attacks.
> But that's how I tend to react.
I wouldn't advocate sticking to that approach.
> And, no, I didn't think you were casting me as a malign influence.
That's good to know.
Ron Knight
wrote:
It is standard umpiring practice, when a right-handed batsman is in
with a left-handed batsman, for the umpire at the striker's end to
begin walking to his new position as soon as it is apparent that an
odd number of runs will be completed by the batsmen. An umpire who is
diligent at this can usually avoid both holding up play and having to
run to his new position. There is no requirement in the Laws that he
wait until the ball is dead to move to his new position, and no
justification for any assumption by the players that the ball is dead
because he has begun to move to his new position.
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
Timbo
to begin walking to his new position *as soon as it is apparent*
that an odd number of runs will be *completed* by the batsmen."
The umpire clearly thought the runs had been completed (either
that, or he wasn't following the rules). If the batsmen weren't
trying to run, and the square leg umpire didn't think they were
trying to run, should he give it out? I'm sure the rule says
something about both sides agreeing that the play is dead, but
there will clearly be situations (like this) that one does and the
other doesn't, and in this case, I think umpires should err on the
side of caution. Similarly, I think if McCullum had missed the
thrown, the Sri Lankans should not have been awarded any
overthrows that resulted -- and indeed, I don't think they would
have run. I was watching that game live, and the camera was on
Sangakkara celebrating his century, not the field, and I thought
the run had been completed.
Regardless, it was a strange situation, and I don't think that
McCullum showed great sportsmanship in that situation (although I
generally think he is a good sportsman).
Ron Knight
wrote:
>David North wrote:
>[snip; Rodney wrote:] How I despise these vague excuses for laws, so open to
>alternative construal!
>
>> The current law also says "the ball shall be considered to be dead when it
>> is clear to the umpire at the bowler's end that the fielding side and both
>> batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play" and "whether the
>> ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide."
>
>Basically, it's still indistinct and open to being taken to mean totally
>different things by different individuals -- not much progress for 178
>years, I reckon, except that the rule is now at least quite honest and
>shameless about its enigmatic nature.
In cricket Law, as in statutory Law, there are Laws and there are
interpretations. Those who are trained in the Law know the
interpretations. It doesn't matter that the bare wording of the Law
may be "open to being taken to mean totally different things by
different individuals", because there is only one individual who
decides when the ball is dead.
(I pay you the compliment of assuming that you understand that the
Laws say "All disputes shall be determined by the umpires" (Law 3.13),
and not "The umpires shall give the first opinion in case of dispute
and thereafter everyone else gets his say, after which the dispute
shall be resolved by political means.")
In the 1980 Code of the Laws of Cricket, the "finally settled" clause
was the catch-all clause of Law 23, Dead Ball, which lists 6 ways in
which the ball automatically becomes dead and 7 occurrences on which
the umpires are instructed to call the ball dead, and then, in case
none of these 13 things happens, says that the ball becomes dead when
"It is finally settled in the hands of the Wicket Keeper or the
Bowler." (Law 23.1(a))
A note to Law 23 reminds us that "Whether the ball is finally settled
or not -- see 1(a) above -- must be a question for the Umpires alone
to decide."
Previously, Law 25 of the 1947 Code said "The ball shall be held to be
'Dead' - on being in the opinion of the Umpire finally settled in the
hands of the Wicket Keeper or Bowler; ... ." I don't have the earlier
codes here, but you have unearthed similar language from even earlier
Codes of the Laws of Cricket.
In April 1996 the Association of Cricket Umpires and Scorers, after
discussions with representatives of the ACU&S, MCC and TCCB, issued
green sheet #7, more formally known as "Technical Committee Matters
(7)", which included guidance for the umpires as to when the ball
becomes dead:
"When the Wicket Keeper, or Bowler, receives the ball, there can be
difficulty in deciding whether or not it is finally settled. If the
Keeper is standing back, and throws it to a fielder near the wicket
with the clear intention of his attempting to put the wicket down, the
ball is not dead. Similarly, it is not to be accounted dead if the
Wicket keeper throws the ball back to the bowler's end with intent to
try to run out the batsman at that end. If, however, he merely
disposes of it to a fielder, to start it on its journey back to the
bowler, the ball has been finally settled. As so often, the problem
is one of deciding intent, though it is usually possible to
distinguish between disposing of the ball and throwing it for some
purpose.
"There are two situations which are clear. Once the bowler in
possession of the ball starts to walk back to his mark, the ball is
dead. If either the keeper or the bowler has the ball and there is a
chance for him to dismiss one of the batsmen but he does not take
advantage of that chance, then the ball is finally settled and so
dead. To prolong the chance of taking the wicket, by continuing to
regard the ball as in play, would unfairly favour the fielding side.
The situation would be different if a fielder had ignored the
opportunity of taking a wicket. The question of 'finally settled'
arises only for the keeper or bowler."
The last two sentences are no longer true under the 2000 Code, but the
rest of the explanation can be taken as a definitive explanation of
what "finally settled" means, not only in the 1980 Code, but also in
the 2000 Code. It also can be taken as a thorough summary of what
well-trained umpires had already been following for decades.
Your objection seems to be that when the umpire is not well trained
the vagueness of the Law will make it more likely that he will make
the wrong decision. Having worked for nearly 30 years now with
umpires who are not well trained I can assure you that, if you have an
umpire who is not properly trained his understanding of "finally
settled" is the least of your problems, and that he will be perfectly
capable of misapplying Laws that are not in the least bit vague.
When you go to court you hire a good lawyer and don't try to represent
yourself. When you play cricket you get a properly trained umpire,
and if that isn't possible you take what you get. It is still the
case that what HE considers "finally settled" is what is finally
settled.
In the period between 1980 and 2000 I have at least once awarded a
boundary overthrow when a fielder retrieved the ball and, without
returning it to the keeper, threw it over the bowler's head and out of
the field. This may seem officious or overly technical, but I was
practicing defensive umpiring, making sure that players understood
when the ball was dead and when it was in play, so as to minimize the
chance of more serious affrays when the question involved a dismissal.
It is the duty of the umpires to see that "the conduct of the game is
strictly in accordance with the Laws" (Law 3.6(a)) and "to control the
game as required by the Laws, with absolute impartiality" (Law 3.1),
not to grant exceptions from the Laws that will favor one team or the
other.
Nevertheless I was quite glad to see the Law altered in a more
sensible fashion under the 2000 Code. But the new Law wasn't entirely
new:
1980 Code, Law 22.2 Call of "Over"
When the agreed number of balls has been bowled, and as the ball
becomes dead or when it becomes clear to the Umpire at the Bowler's
end that both the fielding side and the Batsmen at the wicket have
ceased to regard the ball as in play, the Umpire shall call "over"
before leaving the wicket.
Under the 1980 Code, the standard for the ball becoming dead after the
last ball of the over was different for the standard after any other
ball of the over. After any of the first five (or seven) balls under
the 1980 Code, the ball did not become dead until one of the 13
specific events enumerated in Law 23 occurred, or the catch-all event
of the ball's becoming finally settled in the hands of the keeper or
bowler occurred. Even if everyone thought of the ball as dead, if
none of these 14 things had occurred, the ball was in play and a
batsman could be run out or a fielder could commit a boundary
overthrow.
But after the sixth (or, at times, eighth) ball of the over, the
umpire did not have to wait for one of these 14 things to occur, and
he would call "Over" as soon as it was clear nobody considered the
ball in play. And the call of "Over" was one of the 14 things listed
that made the ball dead (Law 23.1(g)).
This was really irrational, and the 2000 Code has added a new
catch-all clause in Law 23, relegating the old catch-all clause to
merely one of the list:
Law 23.1 Ball is dead
(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the
umpire at the bowler's end that the fielding side and both batsmen at
the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
This now applies after every ball, not just the last ball of the over,
making the question of when the ball is dead much less irregular. It
can also be readily seen that the 1996 green sheet is still very
applicable in its concepts, except that now its guidance can be
applied to every fielder handling the ball, and not just the keeper
and bowler. Once the ball is finally settled in the hands of any
fielder, the ball is dead. Of course it can also apply to a ball that
is just rolling slowly across the pitch. Once the ball is finally
settled anywhere on the field it is dead.
Once the ball is dead it cannot become live again until the beginning
of the next delivery. Once the ball is settled and dead, even if
there was an (ignored) opportunity to run out a batsman or such an
opportunity subsequently arises, the batsman cannot be run out.
But before 2000, a ball in the hands of a fielder other than the
keeper or bowler was not dead merely for that reason, whether finally
settled or not. Therefore your conclusion is correct: Jones may very
well have been legally out; Holmes probably not.
David North
Because if the law was meant to be taken literally, the ball would have been
dead. Clearly it was not meant to be taken literally, because if it was, it
would have been impossible for a wicket-keeper or a bowler to run out or
stump a batsman by throwing the ball at the stumps. If it was not meant to
be taken literally, then why be pedantic about whether it was the
wicketkeeper or the bowler in whose hands the ball ended up? The ball came
to rest in Grace's hands after the batsmen had made their ground, they did
not attempt a further run, and Grace obviously acted in a manner designed to
deceive the batsman into thinking that he considered the ball dead.
David North
news:jght63htlmg07s5pd...@4ax.com...
> 1980 Code, Law 22.2 Call of "Over"
>
> When the agreed number of balls has been bowled, and as the ball
> becomes dead or when it becomes clear to the Umpire at the Bowler's
> end that both the fielding side and the Batsmen at the wicket have
> ceased to regard the ball as in play, the Umpire shall call "over"
> before leaving the wicket.
>
> Under the 1980 Code, the standard for the ball becoming dead after the
> last ball of the over was different for the standard after any other
> ball of the over. After any of the first five (or seven) balls under
> the 1980 Code, the ball did not become dead until one of the 13
> specific events enumerated in Law 23 occurred, or the catch-all event
> of the ball's becoming finally settled in the hands of the keeper or
> bowler occurred. Even if everyone thought of the ball as dead, if
> none of these 14 things had occurred, the ball was in play and a
> batsman could be run out or a fielder could commit a boundary
> overthrow.
>
> But after the sixth (or, at times, eighth) ball of the over, the
> umpire did not have to wait for one of these 14 things to occur, and
> he would call "Over" as soon as it was clear nobody considered the
> ball in play. And the call of "Over" was one of the 14 things listed
> that made the ball dead (Law 23.1(g)).
>
> This was really irrational, and the 2000 Code has added a new
> catch-all clause in Law 23, relegating the old catch-all clause to
> merely one of the list:
It was not that irrational. I suspect that the difference was due to the
fact that, after the last ball of an over, the ball might never enter the
hands of either the keeper or the bowler, so there was clearly a need for
the umpire to be able to decide that the over was complete.
Ron Knight
wrote:
>Ron Knight wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:59:08 +0100, Timbo <ti...@noreply.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rodney wrote:
>>>> Still, I'd venture to suggest that
>>>> not all umpires (and wicketkeepers) are as well-versed as yourself. Do
>>>> you remember that incident in the recent Sri Lanka-New Zealand Test series?
>>> Yep, I saw that. I really cannot see how the umpire gave that out.
>>> It was clear that Murali wasn't going for a run, and what's more,
>>> the umpire that gave it started walking towards the wicket before
>>> the fielder had thrown the ball back.
>>
>> It is standard umpiring practice, when a right-handed batsman is in
>> with a left-handed batsman, for the umpire at the striker's end to
>> begin walking to his new position as soon as it is apparent that an
>> odd number of runs will be completed by the batsmen. An umpire who is
>> diligent at this can usually avoid both holding up play and having to
>> run to his new position. There is no requirement in the Laws that he
>> wait until the ball is dead to move to his new position, and no
>> justification for any assumption by the players that the ball is dead
>> because he has begun to move to his new position.
>>
>Ah, but you reinforce my point:
Obviously at least one of us is not getting the other's point.
>"the umpire at the striker's end
>to begin walking to his new position *as soon as it is apparent*
>that an odd number of runs will be *completed* by the batsmen."
>The umpire clearly thought the runs had been completed (either
>that, or he wasn't following the rules).
How do you get "had been" out of "will be", and what rules are you
referring to? I didn't mention any rules in my post, just the
standard practice of well-trained umpires.
>If the batsmen weren't
>trying to run, and the square leg umpire didn't think they were
>trying to run, should he give it out?
If the batsman is out of his ground and the ball is in play it is not
relevant whether he is trying for a run, except in distinguishing Run
out from Stumped, or if No ball has been called.
>I'm sure the rule says
>something about both sides agreeing that the play is dead, but
>there will clearly be situations (like this) that one does and the
>other doesn't, and in this case, I think umpires should err on the
>side of caution.
"Err" being the operative word, given that the Law clearly states that
it must be clear to the umpire at the bowlers end that both sides
consider that the ball is no longer in play. If one side considers
the ball in play while the other does not, then somebody is not paying
attention, and it is not the responsibility of the umpire to save him
from his inattention.
The only point I was trying to make in my previous post was in
response to your trying to make something of the fact that the umpire
was moving toward the wicket while a fieldsman still had the ball. My
point was that the umpire's moving towards the wicket had nothing to
do with whether the ball was dead or not, and should not have been
interpreted by anyone as implying that the ball was dead.
>Similarly, I think if McCullum had missed the
>thrown, the Sri Lankans should not have been awarded any
>overthrows that resulted -- and indeed, I don't think they would
>have run.
Certainly if the umpires consider the ball to be in play, both runouts
and additional runs are equally fair and in order. Your confidence
that the batsmen would not have run on an overthrow does not match
mine.
Andrew Dunford
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:54:04 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
> <adun...@artifax.net> wrote:
>
>>[snip], modern Test match umpires do seem to create part of the problem
>>themselves by calling 'over' prematurely. In the morning session at Old
>>Trafford today a ball was hit to the fieldsman at point; umpire Bowden
>>could
>>clearly be heard calling over the moment the ball settled in the point
>>fieldsman's hands - perhaps it would be clearer if he let/required point
>>return the ball to the 'keeper before calling 'over'.
>
>
> When 6 balls have been bowled other than those which are not to count
> in the over and as the ball becomes dead -- see Law 23 (Dead ball) --
> the umpire shall call Over before leaving the wicket.
>
> Law 23.1 Ball is Dead
>
> (b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the
> umpire at the bowler's end that the fielding side and both batsmen at
> the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
>
> End quotations. There is no requirement that the ball be returned to
> the keeper, and it would simply be a waste of time to require this.
Ok - what I wrote was quite wrong. I was simply searching, with difficulty,
for a justification for Muralitharan's behaviour. Unfortunately he let his
understandable delight at Sangakkara's achievement cloud his judgement.
Andrew
Timbo
But from a batsman's point of view, when do you decide it safe to
come out of your crease? Surely it is when the umpire considers
the ball dead? How do you know when the umpire considers it dead,
other than his behaviour?
In this case, I have not seen footage as to how the umpire at the
bowler's end was behaving (he may have been watching Sangakarra
celebrate his century like the rest of us were), but the square
leg umpire, in my opinion, was behaving as if the ball was dead.
As were most of the fielding team, for example, Shane Bond, who
was already past the stumps walking back to his bowling mark. If
the umpire at the bowler's end was behaving as if the ball was
dead (heading back towards the stumps for example, which is a
clear sign that the ball is dead because if he thought the ball
still in play he would remain inline with the crease to ensure he
could judge any runouts), then the batsmen would consider it dead.
> If the batsman is out of his ground and the ball is in play it is not
> relevant whether he is trying for a run, except in distinguishing Run
> out from Stumped, or if No ball has been called.
>
It is relevant, because it indicates whether the batsman thinks
the ball is dead or not, which is part of the ruling.
> Certainly if the umpires consider the ball to be in play, both runouts
> and additional runs are equally fair and in order. Your confidence
> that the batsmen would not have run on an overthrow does not match
> mine.
>
I don't think they could have, because neither of them would have
noticed that they had a chance to.
Anyway, my opinion is really just that the case is not clear cut.
There are several factors, including the fact that only a couple
of the fielders seemed to regard the ball is in play, and both
batsmen clearly not. I thought that Murali was naive to wander
off... even at the level I play at I'm careful about those things.
It has certainly made many of us study the rules a bit closer, and
taught Murali a lesson :-)
sdavmor
Ask the umpire if the ball is dead.
[snip]
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon
NP: nothing
Rodney
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought for just a moment there that you
were arguing for the sake of arguing.
> If it was not meant to
> be taken literally, then why be pedantic about whether it was the
> wicketkeeper or the bowler in whose hands the ball ended up?
I don't believe that I had contention with either the bowler or the
wicketkeeper's finishing up with ball in end; 'twas W.G. Grace, who had
been fielding at point at the time, in whose hands the ball finally came
to a halt. Thoms, the umpire, obviously went by the letter of the law,
and the fault lies with it, rather than him, for being so very vague
about the issue.
C.B. Fry and Luke Greenwood were just two relatively contemporary
players I know who felt that Jones ought not to have been given out. Fry
believed that, in the spirit of the Laws, W.G. had constituted himself a
wicketkeeper, which meant that the ball should have been regarded as dead.
> The ball came
> to rest in Grace's hands after the batsmen had made their ground, they did
> not attempt a further run, and Grace obviously acted in a manner designed to
> deceive the batsman into thinking that he considered the ball dead.
According to Fred Spofforth, he juggled it around in his hands while
walking towards the bowler but then, when he saw Jones leave his crease,
turned around and strolled back to the striker's end to do the naughty
business; according to Geoff Armstrong, however, Grace actually hid the
ball under his beard; John Masefield reckons that W.G. took the time to
chat to a team-mate; another (I forget who) is of the opinion that he
motioned to throw the ball back to the bowler; someone else reckons that
W.G. actually *told* Jones that it was safe to leave his crease. Who to
believe, I wonder.
Rodney
Indeed. I can't think of a better way than that.
Timbo
> Timbo wrote:
>> But from a batsman's point of view, when do you decide it safe to come
>> out of your crease? Surely it is when the umpire considers the ball
>> dead? How do you know when the umpire considers it dead, other than
>> his behaviour?
>
> Ask the umpire if the ball is dead.
>
> [snip]
I was going to qualify that, but I didn't think anyone would be
pedantic enough to pick up on it ;) But asking doesn't always
work... what if you speak a different language, or there is a
misunderstanding in what you or the umpire say? That's why we use
signals in cricket. The umpire *should* have a signal (or a
reserved word) to indicate the ball is dead, otherwise there is
confusion, as demonstrated by the Murali runout.
sdavmor
It's always worked for me when I want to go and do some gardening. I
can see how it wouldn't have helped in the Murali case since he turned
back and wandered down the pitch.
Andrew Dunford
"Timbo" <ti...@noreply.invalid> wrote in message
Let us just stop and remind ourselves here that in the incident under
discussion, the fieldsman at fine leg had just let go of his return at the
point Murali went for a walk, and it wasn't the last ball of the over. I
fail to understand how anybody could construe the ball as being dead at such
a time (except of course that Murali presumably did!).
Andrew
Phil.
That's exactly what happens in ML Baseball, the batter dives for the
base and stays in contact with it and then asks the ump to get up,
essentially ruling a dead ball. There should have been no confusion
in the Murali case since the ball was in the air when he left his
wicket!
Phil.
dechucka
"Timbo" <ti...@noreply.invalid> wrote in message
news:f4p551$5c9$1...@news.liv.ac.uk...
The Murali incident from an umpires pov was a no brainier the bloke was out.
OK he was out in an unfortunate manner but he was clearly out. Murali had a
brain explosion and suffered the consequences.
sdavmor
Agreed. Unfortunate, but since the ball was still on its way back to
the keeper from the outfield, Murali threw his wicket away.
Mike Holmans
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Let us just stop and remind ourselves here that in the incident under
>discussion, the fieldsman at fine leg had just let go of his return at the
>point Murali went for a walk, and it wasn't the last ball of the over. I
>fail to understand how anybody could construe the ball as being dead at such
>a time (except of course that Murali presumably did!).
Agreed.
I didn't agree with your assessment that McCullum was unsporting,
though. The ball was being thrown in from the field, a batsman was out
of his crease - I'd be appalled if a keeper didn't whip the bails off
and appeal. It should be basic instinct.
If anyone is to be called unsporting for dismissing Murali, it is
surely Fleming. He had the option to withdraw the appeal, and as
someone who was not a direct participant but an observer had the
opportunity to appreciate what had happened. He could therefore have
taken the view that it would be cruel to pursue the appeal and thereby
penalise Murali for what was merely an unfortunately timed explosion
of emotion. That he did not constitutes the case for the prosecution
that he was unsporting.
I'm not convinced. My view remains that Murali was disrespectful to
the game by running off to celebrate while the ball was plainly not
dead and deserved to be out as a result. If Test cricket is the
highest form of the game, it requires the strictest of respect for its
Laws. If it had been Gary Keedy's XI v An International XI at
Rawtenstall CC (Commentary by David Lloyd, Tea-time appearance by
Cannon & Ball, jazz band, BBQ, face painting, grand draw, entry by
numbered programme £10, £5 concs, U-12 free), then I'd have expected
Phlegming to call Murali back. But in a Test, no.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Andrew Dunford
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t1t0731o3mcj0firb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:31:16 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
> <adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>>Let us just stop and remind ourselves here that in the incident under
>>discussion, the fieldsman at fine leg had just let go of his return at the
>>point Murali went for a walk, and it wasn't the last ball of the over. I
>>fail to understand how anybody could construe the ball as being dead at
>>such
>>a time (except of course that Murali presumably did!).
>
> Agreed.
>
> I didn't agree with your assessment that McCullum was unsporting,
> though. The ball was being thrown in from the field, a batsman was out
> of his crease - I'd be appalled if a keeper didn't whip the bails off
> and appeal. It should be basic instinct.
>
> If anyone is to be called unsporting for dismissing Murali, it is
> surely Fleming. He had the option to withdraw the appeal, and as
> someone who was not a direct participant but an observer had the
> opportunity to appreciate what had happened. He could therefore have
> taken the view that it would be cruel to pursue the appeal and thereby
> penalise Murali for what was merely an unfortunately timed explosion
> of emotion. That he did not constitutes the case for the prosecution
> that he was unsporting.
Yes, on reflection I agree entirely that McCullum was doing nothing more
than his job and that final responsibility lay with Fleming.
> I'm not convinced. My view remains that Murali was disrespectful to
> the game by running off to celebrate while the ball was plainly not
> dead and deserved to be out as a result. If Test cricket is the
> highest form of the game, it requires the strictest of respect for its
> Laws.
I think there is room for both points of view. Murali's action was careless
and unprofessional, but there was still room for Fleming to let Murali off
with a warning along the lines of "do it again and we'll have you".
I don't think we can ignore the match situation entirely. NZ had
experienced a very frustrating morning trying to dismiss first Malinga then
Murali and had been unable to shift the latter despite him facing up to Bond
from the front row of the stand. The dismissal left a taste in my mouth of
"we can't get you out any other way, so this will do". In that respect it
reminded me of Alan Hurst running out Sikander Bakht at the MCG, at a time
when Asif Iqbal was farming the strike expertly.
> If it had been Gary Keedy's XI v An International XI at
> Rawtenstall CC (Commentary by David Lloyd, Tea-time appearance by
> Cannon & Ball, jazz band, BBQ, face painting, grand draw, entry by
> numbered programme Ł10, Ł5 concs, U-12 free), then I'd have expected
> Phlegming to call Murali back.
I'd have expected Fleming to have sent Murali on his way, in the hope that
the match could be wrapped up before the tea interval so he didn't have to
endure Cannon and Ball.
> But in a Test, no.
Andrew
Timbo
leg umpire changing sides (Sangakarra is left handed, Murali is
right handed). You can clearly see him looking up at the umpire
before he walks off. It was still stupid on his behalf... you have
to be careful.
But it's really made me realise that the law is clearly imprecise:
the ball is dead when the umpire considers it dead --- there is no
rule outlining where the ball should be or who should have it --,
so another umpire may not have given it out if he considered the
ball dead, and Murali would not have been given out. You want
consistency between umpires, so this is not a well-defined rule.
Andrew Dunford
"Timbo" <ti...@noreply.invalid> wrote in message
Whilst the possibility exists, I find it difficult to imagine any umpire
considering the ball to be dead at that moment.
Andrew
Mike Holmans
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>"Timbo" <ti...@noreply.invalid> wrote in message
>news:f4qtd3$qeo$1...@news.liv.ac.uk...
>> But it's really made me realise that the law is clearly imprecise: the
>> ball is dead when the umpire considers it dead --- there is no rule
>> outlining where the ball should be or who should have it --, so another
>> umpire may not have given it out if he considered the ball dead, and
>> Murali would not have been given out. You want consistency between
>> umpires, so this is not a well-defined rule.
>
>Whilst the possibility exists, I find it difficult to imagine any umpire
>considering the ball to be dead at that moment.
Is that "any umpire", or just "any umpire likely to officiate in a
first-class match"?
Cheers,
Mike
--
Andrew Dunford
Ordinarily I would plump for the latter. However we must be careful,
following the recent Doctrove incident in which the Indian players appealed
to the square leg umpire for a run out only to discover that he wasn't
actually on the field.
Andrew
Rodney
I agree wholeheartedly.
Andrew Dunford
> Timbo wrote:
>> sdavmor wrote:
>>> Timbo wrote:
>>>> But from a batsman's point of view, when do you decide it safe to come
>>>> out of your crease? Surely it is when the umpire considers the ball
>>>> dead? How do you know when the umpire considers it dead, other than his
>>>> behaviour?
>>>
>>> Ask the umpire if the ball is dead.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> I was going to qualify that, but I didn't think anyone would be pedantic
>> enough to pick up on it ;) But asking doesn't always work... what if you
>> speak a different language, or there is a misunderstanding in what you or
>> the umpire say? That's why we use signals in cricket. The umpire *should*
>> have a signal (or a reserved word) to indicate the ball is dead,
>> otherwise there is confusion, as demonstrated by the Murali runout.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly.
In that case I vote for a rendition of the 1812 Overture, with cannon.
Andrew
Rodney
Suddenly, I don't think I agree anymore.