Run Out

[Stuart]

Quick clarification question for my learned umpiring friends;

There was a situation in the Tasmania V Queensland 20/20 game tonight in which a batsman was run out. The fielder picked the ball up in his right hand and dived at the stumps Jonty style. There was some debate about whether his left shoulder/head actually broke the stumps before his right hand holding the ball. However, the statement (supposedly from the 3rd umpire) was that the wicket can be broken with any part of the body so long as you are holding the ball.

Is this true? I've had a very preliminary search through the Laws (i.e. Law 38) but can't find this particular interpretation. If it is true, it isn't something I have ever come across before. And it raises the interesting scenario in which a player could reach out for the ball (like the first baseman) and catch the ball and kick the stumps with his feet.

Help?

[Grandmaster UZ]

Not true. Hence not out.

End of thread.

[Stuart]

Law 28 (IV) would seem to directly reject this interpretation. Looks like we may have a new Darryl on our hands.

[Stumpy]

Can a keeper's glove holding the ball break the wicket if the ball itself isn't in contact with the stumps? You sometimes see keepers take the throw-in and appear to hit the wicket with the back of the glove that's holding the ball.

[Grandmaster UZ]

Yes they can.

[fletch]

Law 28 (iv) is clear as you say Stuart. The wicket must be put down by the hand or arm whilst holding the ball.

[Stumpy]

Wow, quick response, thanks.

[Stuart]

Good to see that Australia obviously has some great umpires just ready to step into the breech if Darryl ever stands down ......

[pappubahry]

I was at the ground, so had to make do with the big screen replays. I thought it was the chest/head breaking the stumps, but a guy with a radio said that the interpretation was that it was shoulder, and apparently the whole arm counts as the ball if you're holding it.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by pappubahry

I was at the ground, so had to make do with the big screen replays. I thought it was the chest/head breaking the stumps, but a guy with a radio said that the interpretation was that it was shoulder, and apparently the whole arm counts as the ball if you're holding it.

The wholw ar DOES count so i suppose it depends as to which part of the shoulder broke the stumps. Regardless, the assertion

However, the statement (supposedly from the 3rd umpire) was that the wicket can be broken with any part of the body so long as you are holding the ball.

is still clearly bollocks.

[Fine Leg]

However, the statement (supposedly from the 3rd umpire) was that the wicket can be broken with any part of the body so long as you are holding the ball.

This was what I thought was the case. So if the keeper takes the ball in his glove, he can then proceed to kick the stumps and hence remove the bails. Not seen it happen, but this is what we were taught as a wee nipper, but there again we were also taught that lifting the seam was allowed.

[Fine Leg]

Originally Posted by Stuart

However, the statement (supposedly from the 3rd umpire) was that the wicket can be broken with any part of the body so long as you are holding the ball.

Is this true? I've had a very preliminary search through the Laws (i.e. Law 38) but can't find this particular interpretation. If it is true, it isn't something I have ever come across before. And it raises the interesting scenario in which a player could reach out for the ball (like the first baseman) and catch the ball and kick the stumps with his feet.

Sorry, didn't read all of your post before I typed my reply, Stuart. Like I said, this is what we were taught.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by Fine Leg

Sorry, didn't read all of your post before I typed my reply, Stuart. Like I said, this is what we were taught.

You were taught wrong.

[Grandmaster UZ]

So wrong.

[Fine Leg]

Originally Posted by fletch

You were taught wrong.

It was only by the games' teacher at Primary School. Like I said we were also taught to lift the seam. :rolleyes:

Was it EVER in the laws that you could break the stumps with any part of the body if you had the ball in one hand?

I know you have to pull a stump out of the ground if you have the ball in one hand and the bails had been accidentally broken beforehand.
But God knows why a lot of kids have been taught like this years back. Very confusing..:confused:

[Stuart]

I've never heard of this interpretation before - I wondered if it was one of the ICC umpiring panels latest brain-snaps.

Pappu's comment about the shoulder carrying the ball makes some sort of sense, however, the discussion on the television was based around his opposition shoulder (i.e. his left shoulder while the ball was in his right hand) hitting the stumps.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I've never heard of this interpretation before - I wondered if it was one of the ICC umpiring panels latest brain-snaps.

Pappu's comment about the shoulder carrying the ball makes some sort of sense, however, the discussio n on the television was based around his opposition shoulder (i.e. his left shoulder while the ball was in his right hand) hitting the stumps.

Its a major misunderstanding. If the ball was in his right hand and the stumps were taken out with the left shoulder, there is no way it is out.

A common misconception (which I have seen in competitive cricket given out) is the bails being off and the fielder pulling up a stump with the ball being in his other hand. In this case the ball has to be in contact with the stump in order to be out.

[Stuart]

There is some limited footage of the incident at around 2.13 of this video

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/..._23472,00.html

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by fletch

Its a major misunderstanding. If the ball was in his right hand and the stumps were taken out with the left shoulder, there is no way it is out.

A common misconception (which I have seen in competitive cricket given out) is the bails being off and the fielder pulling up a stump with the ball being in his other hand. In this case the ball has to be in contact with the stump in order to be out.

Yep - heard people say this before as well. Including television commentators

[sixstitcher]

Originally Posted by Stuart

There is some limited footage of the incident at around 2.13 of this video

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/..._23472,00.html

He didn't look like he hit the stumps the stumps with the ball - not out.

[Stuart]

That was my impression as well. I guess you could argue he did hit the stumps with the ball, but I also reckon the stumps had already been broken by his left shoulder/head.

However, the 3rd umpire gave the decision very quickly (after only about 2 reviews). I couldn't understand how he made this decision so quickly, and the television commentators (Mark Waugh) said that the 'any part of the body' argument was the basis for it. That was why I was so confused - I'd never heard of that logic before.

Must be a local Australian 20/20 rule.

[fletch]

As long as the "local rule" is written down and agreed beforehand (which I doubt) then fair enough. Sounds to me that the umps and commentators (less surprisingly and understandable) don't know the Laws properly.

[fletch]

Just one question as the vid isn't working for me. Did the player take the stumps out of the ground with ball in hand (and ball or had/arm in contact)after the inital collision that dislodged the bails? If he did then it is out.

[sixstitcher]

No - it looks as though he tackled them - Samoan style.

[Stuart]

In summary - the player dived at stumps with ball in his right hand and demolished the stumps.

Not entirely clear precisely what broke the stumps - looked to me like his head/left shoulder hit the 'leg' stump' closest to him just before his right hand struck the 'off stump' further away. Stumps were all flattened with player sliding over the top of them. Batsman (by the way) was certainly out when the bails were first dislodged (by 10cms or so), but made his ground at some point while the stumps were going in all directions. You could argue that the player removed the 'off stump' with his right hand/body after initially breaking the stumps with his left shoulder/head, but I would also imagine the batsman was probably close to being in by the time the stump was completely removed from the ground.

It would be good to find a better vid for you to see - I would like to see it taken to an umpiring panel for discussion.