On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:57:59 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2024 at 20:13:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> > 25.4.2 If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.
> >
> > 25.4.3 If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.
> >
> > If injured, they can resume their innings in any order.
> That seems pretty obvious
yeah. I did misspeak though. I said "injured", but it's really ANY retired batsman, for any reason. Obviously anyone retired under 25.4.3 needs permission from the opposing captain.
> > ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only really used for statistics eg batting averages.
>
> *on the assumption that the retired batter could have resumed their innings. , which might be controversial if they were not at the ground.
something about this whole retired business doesn't feel quite right.
Firstly, ISTM there are 3 states;
1) retired (this is any retired batsman, including those under 25.4.2 and 25.4.3). They are "retired" until the close of the innings, when their status changes to either
2) retired Not Out
3) retired Out
This seems patently obvious from the wording of 25.4.2/3. A batsman doesn't become "retired not out" or "retired out" until it has been determined that their innings won't resume, and that doesn't happen until the team's inning ends.
A batsman who retires under 25.4.2 has an automatic right to resume their innings.
A batsman who retires under 25.4.3 doesn't have an automatic right to resume their innings, but may do so if the other captain agrees to it.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure most scorers would considered a batsman who retired under 25.4.3 (a fact they'd need to establish by talking to the umpire) to be Out when it comes to live statistics. Eg Cricinfo updates a batsman's stats after each
delivery, and I'm pretty sure in this case they'd treat the retirement as a dismissal w.r.t averages. Thing is.. if the oppo captain let such a batsman bat again, they'd have to "undo" the dismissal.
I think Retired Out should only partially be treated like a dismissal, such as when working out if the innings is complete. Retired Out (determined once the fielding captain rejected the request to bat again) would count as 1 of the 10 possible dismissals.
But I don't think it should count as Out when it comes to statistics eg batting averages.
There are almost zero circumstances where retiring is beneficial to the batting team. It almost always helps the bowling team.
I was trying to think how it could help the batting team, and wondered if "retiring a fatigued batsman to bring in a new one" would help, but.. who can accurately tell the difference between illness and fatigue? Would heatstroke count as "illness"?
If I was defining stats, I'd treat *any* retired as a Not Out.
As for treating retired as Out when it comes to determining winners (say, for example, Number of Dismissals was used as a table tie breaker if points were tied), then it absolutely feels unfair to treat Retired Out as a Dismissal.
Imagine these two innings;
a) 10 batsman, all scoring 50, then retiring under 25.4.3 and not batting again
b) 10 batsman, all scoring 50, then getting dismissed eg caught
Innings A is a *far* superior batting innings. The bowling team didn't take a single wicket! But if we treat Retired Out as a dismissal, these innings would be "equal" on that count. That doesn't feel right.