Wicket Keepers catch in Pads
PICTON K J J
What a strange time my cricket team is having. Ingured Batsmen with
runners who run anyway leading to massive confusion and now this:-
On Saturday, our wicket keeper was standing almost completely upright
when the batsman collected a huge bottom edge and the ball carried to
the wicket keeper and lodged between his legs just above the ankle
without touching the ground. He then casually reached down and gloved
the ball.
1) Should the ball have been judged dead? I don't think so.
2) Should the batsman be out? I don't know due to 3)
3) Should the batsman be awarded 5 runs for the fielding side using
clothing to catch the ball?
Does the law exclude wicket keepers gloves? other equipment??
--
Take it Easy...
Kev
Steve Shadbolt
ouk...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au (PICTON K J J) wrote:
<snip>
>On Saturday, our wicket keeper was standing almost completely upright
>when the batsman collected a huge bottom edge and the ball carried to
>the wicket keeper and lodged between his legs just above the ankle
>without touching the ground. He then casually reached down and gloved
>the ball.
>1) Should the ball have been judged dead? I don't think so.
>2) Should the batsman be out? I don't know due to 3)
>3) Should the batsman be awarded 5 runs for the fielding side using
>clothing to catch the ball?
>
>Does the law exclude wicket keepers gloves? other equipment??
>
The batsman is out, the law must exclude wicket keepers glove and pads
otherwise it would be five runs everytime the ball touched the
wicketkeeper.
You don't have to actually catch the ball in your hands you just have
to have it under control.
I can't remember the rules on clothing but the gist of it is that you
must not use clothing as an aid to stopping the ball eg catching it in
a hat.
Steve
Grahame Giddings
Oh no, it's him again with another odd question! ;-)
> On Saturday, our wicket keeper was standing almost completely upright
> when the batsman collected a huge bottom edge and the ball carried to
> the wicket keeper and lodged between his legs just above the ankle
> without touching the ground. He then casually reached down and gloved
> the ball.
The laws are quite clear on this (unlike your earlier injured batsman
question), according to law 32.2 (b), the batsman should have been out:
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if :-
The ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in
his dress or, in the case of the Wicket-Keeper, in his pads. However, a
Striker may not be caught if a ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by
a Fieldsman, in which case the Umpire shall call and signal "dead ball"
(See Law 23. - Dead Ball)
Here's hoping your next game is nice and simple with no controversial
dismissals!
;-)
Grahame
Jack Bramah
In article <5bv2pb$2...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>, PICTON K J J
<ouk...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>
>What a strange time my cricket team is having. Ingured Batsmen with
>runners who run anyway leading to massive confusion and now this:-
>
>when the batsman collected a huge bottom edge and the ball carried to
>the wicket keeper and lodged between his legs just above the ankle
>without touching the ground. He then casually reached down and gloved
>the ball.
>2) Should the batsman be out? I don't know due to 3)
>3) Should the batsman be awarded 5 runs for the fielding side using
>clothing to catch the ball?
It's only five runs for deliberately using clothing to catch the ball.
>
>Does the law exclude wicket keepers gloves? other equipment??
>
--
Jack Bramah
Jeff Green
> runners who run anyway leading to massive confusion and now this:-
>
> On Saturday, our wicket keeper was standing almost completely upright
> when the batsman collected a huge bottom edge and the ball carried to
> the wicket keeper and lodged between his legs just above the ankle
> without touching the ground. He then casually reached down and gloved
> the ball.
> 1) Should the ball have been judged dead? I don't think so.
> 2) Should the batsman be out? I don't know due to 3)
> 3) Should the batsman be awarded 5 runs for the fielding side using
> clothing to catch the ball?
>
>
> --
>
> Kev
Law 32. 2b A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if:
The ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in
So out he was
David Whaley
In article <vgWrZFAp...@catland.demon.co.uk>,
Jack Bramah <cat...@catland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5bv2pb$2...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>, PICTON K J J
><ouk...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>>
>>What a strange time my cricket team is having. Ingured Batsmen with
>>runners who run anyway leading to massive confusion and now this:-
>>
>>On Saturday, our wicket keeper was standing almost completely upright
>>when the batsman collected a huge bottom edge and the ball carried to
>>the wicket keeper and lodged between his legs just above the ankle
>>without touching the ground. He then casually reached down and gloved
>>the ball.
>>1) Should the ball have been judged dead? I don't think so.
>
>
>>2) Should the batsman be out? I don't know due to 3)
>
>
>>3) Should the batsman be awarded 5 runs for the fielding side using
>>clothing to catch the ball?
>
>It's only five runs for deliberately using clothing to catch the ball.
>>
>>Does the law exclude wicket keepers gloves? other equipment??
>>
>
>--
>Jack Bramah
Jack.
Are you trying to wind us up, or do these incidents genuinely happen?
In answer to your question, the batsman is out caught. End of question, see
Law 32 para 2 (b)
A catch shall be considered to be fairly made if:
(b) "The ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges
in his dress or, in the case of a wicketkeeper in his pads." ...
(shortened)
enjoy your cricket
David Whaley
Eamon Hannan
See Mark Waugh's dismissal first innings in 4th test
David Whaley <da...@mactwo.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<AF101335...@mactwo.demon.co.uk>...