|
| |
HOW'S THIS?
Have you ever been watching the cricket and thought how can that be?
Maybe you want to clarify something within the rules of the game to sort out an
argument with your friends. In HOW'S THIS? you can ask me questions
on any aspect of the game. Please don't hesitate to send me your questions
as I will be more than happy to answer them here on this page. All you
need to do is send an email with your name & city, as well as your question to
hows_this@cricketump.com and the answer
will be up as soon as possible.
|
Name/Home |
Question |
Answer |
|
|
|
THIS SPACE IS RESERVED FOR YOUR QUESTION AND MY
ANSWER.... scroll down for answers to questions |
|
Jothindra of
Mysore |
Mr. Darryl,
I think the rule that any ball pitched
outside the leg stump-in an one day match- being declared a "wide" is
absolutely silly. A "wide" is in the traditional sense a ball which is
not in the reach of the batsmen. But I am shocked to see even those
balls which are very much in the reach of the batsmen being declared a
"wide". This amounts to being biased towards the bowler. So, does that
mean that the bowler has to forego bowling on one side of the wicket
totally? It also means this silly rule deprives a bowler of being at
his craftiest and most creative best. Share your thoughts on this.
|
Hello Jothindra Yes...this playing
condition is biased against the bowler
and yes...the bowler must forego bowling on one side of
the wicket totally.
But your suggestion would be a disaster.
What sort of game would we have if the bowler was able to
deliver six balls every over down the leg side, maybe three feet outside the
line of the leg stump?
Oh dear! Think about it. Wouldn't doing that be crafty and
creative? In 50 overs, a team may score 70 or 80 runs and probably not lose
any wickets.
The 20 and 50 over games are tailored for batsmen, run
scoring and action. That's why they are very popular forms of the game. The
bowlers can still be crafty and creative using swing, seam, change of pace,
spin or no spin. |
|
|
Daryl,
This happened in a match that I was watching:
Here's a commentary snapshot from Cricinfo:
13.3 Amarnath to Nayar, 5 runs, comes round the wicket this time, he
places it to backward point and Badrinath has a shy at the stumps, the ball
hits the sweet spot of Bravo's bat and races away to third man for four over
throws
As a fan of the bowling team, I was a bit peeved that the batting team
team were awarded the four runs as overthrows. I did think that the umpire
ought to have spoken to the batsman before awarding / 'de-awarding' the runs
- as you have so rightly done when you spoke to the
Pakistan batsman while you were officiating (I am referring to
your response to Rishi's question in Cricump).
Guess, who the umpire was in this case?
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/335989.html
Regards,
Mahesh |
Hi Mahesh
The umpires are the judges of
fair and unfair play…so I know what you are talking about.
And yes…I was one of the
umpires, but not at the bowler’s end in the incident that you note. If I had
been at the bowler’s end, I would have awarded the extra runs as well.
I recalled the incident at
Dambulla when I did confer with the batsmen about extra runs, and they
agreed that it wasn’t right to be awarded those runs. But ICC confirmed soon
after that I shouldn’t apply my interpretation in a game, while somewhere
else, another umpire awards the runs. We are talking about ensuring
consistency across the world.
But I would still rather see
the ball declared dead in such a situation. Maybe that change will be
promoted after an important Twenty20 match is determined by such a
deflection.
There is a greater likelihood
of deflections and overthrows in this format, with fielders frequently
flinging the ball at the stumps.
Sadly, it often takes a
dramatic incident to create change.
|
|
Rishi Banerjee
of
Singapore
|
Hi
Daryl
Interesting note first up: I met you in
Perth a few
years ago in an elevator in the hotel! Doubt you remember, but I was with my
family at the time and I remember my mum asking if you were watching the
cricket the next day. You answered that you were actually officiating in the
game! [She explained later that she didn't recognize you without your hat]
My
first question is about run-outs. I remember a run-out involving the Indian
left-hander Dinesh Mongia a while ago. He had made a diving attempt to get
into his ground, his bat had slid partially IN along the ground but, just as
the ball collided with the stumps, his bat had popped into the air again. He
was given out after referral and this decision puzzled me a little owing to
the fact that his bat had already been in the crease before the ball hit the
stumps. Does this mean that, even if a batsman is well-past the stumps, he
can be given out (say if both of his feet are in the air while running)? The
batsman could be a good 10 metres past the crease recovering from a quick
single (with his bat in the air because he is already well in) and be given
out?
The
second question has to do with something that happened in a school cricket
game of mine. When an opposing team-mate was grounding his bat, his bat got
in the way of a fielder's attempt to hit the stumps. The ball ricocheted off
his bat and went into
no-man's land, and the batsmen proceeded
to take three more runs. Some people in my team think that it was against
the rules of the game to keep running after the bat has caused the
overthrow.. others think that it is just cricket etiquette not to run and
that the batsmen can choose whether or not they take advantage of the
opportunity. Is there an actual rule regarding this?
Thanks
for your time. If I meet you in an elevator again one day I'll be sure to
let you know!
|
Hi Rishi... Two
very good questions are asked here and both arouse lots of emotion and
passionate discussion.
Dinesh had attempted to make good his ground
but had not quite achieved it with total control. Perhaps it's like a
baseballer sliding into second or third base and not retaining touch with
the base. He can be put out by a player with the ball touching him when he
is off the base even momentarily. Dinesh may have made his ground but he
then is deemed to have left his ground and not for the purpose of protecting
himself. If he was avoiding being hit by the ball, then he would have been
ruled as not out.
Now we go controversial.
If a player passes the stumps and jumps in the
air to celebrate a century or is just pumped up with his effort, he should
be given out if the stumps are disturbed when he is off the ground. It's
bizarre...I know. That's the interpretation from those who are entrusted
with the laws of this great game.
Thankfully...cricket is umpired by people who
have steady heads and are clear thinking enough to say to themselves.."What?
I'm not giving anyone out like that! That would be madness! It's just not
cricket."
I don't know of anyone who has been dismissed
in this manner.
The written law must eventually catch up with
reality.
In the school game, the batsmen were within
their rights to take extra runs but in international cricket, it is
considered bad form. It is entirely up to the batsmen at the time. Sometimes
the other batsman doesn't see the circumstances as he is running the other
way at the time of the throw and deflection.. He may call his partner
through and demand that he run.
As an umpire, I am in a no win situation if the
deflection runs all the way to the boundary. I am compelled to signal the
boundary four and usually hold an open hand to the scorers indicating five
runs were scored in total.
In an ODI, I once asked a Pakistan batsman if
he wanted the extra boundary after a deflection from his bat and he
confirmed that he didn't expect them. I called a dead ball and only allowed
the original signal. I was severely criticised by a colleague but my point
was simple. The batsmen were not going to run after the deflection. Why
should the runs be forced upon them because a boundary had been crossed?
For me...it is all about etiquette and the
spirit of the game.
Please give my regards to your mum. Tell her
I'm still not wearing my hat in the lift! |
| Jayanth of
Bangalore |
Jayanth has a straightforward question about lbws.
This query is about LBW's. Say the
ball pitches and hits me in line and the height is okay too. I have my bat
behind my pads. So, the ball would have gone on and hit my bat, not the
stumps directly. Am I still out?
|
Hello Jayanth
Absolutely...out. The bat only concerns the umpire if it makes contact with
the ball before it first touches pad or body or any other part of the
batsman apart from the hand holding the bat.
Now get your bat out and play some shots.
Best wishes
Daryl
|
| Prasenjit, somewhere in
U.S.A. |
Prasenjit wonders what happens when overs are not bowled in a Test match
In the
Kolkata test some overs were lost but only part of it was made up the next
day?
What
exactly are the rules? Why can the overs not be made up entirely?
|
On the
first day only 83.3 overs were bowled out of a minimum target of 90 overs.
Under any system, the over in progress is always completed the next day. But
we left the field at 4.24p.m. which was six minutes earlier than the
scheduled close at 4.30p.m. Under ICC. Test Playing Conditions, we must
try to make up lost time so we began the second day at 9.24a.m.to cover
those six minutes. The time is converted into overs with one over for each
four minutes or part thereof. Six minutes means two overs, so on the second
day, the minimum overs to be bowled was 92 overs...90 plus the extra two.
Just
to keep going now that I'm on a roll, when India began batting today, 52
overs remained to be bowled. If South Africa had completed that tally at the
required rate of four minutes/over, they would have needed to bowl until
4.54p.m.or 24 minutes after the scheduled close. This was never going to
happen with sunset expected at approximately 4.28p.m.
This
situation comes about because teams are allowed two minutes/wicket taken and
four minutes for each drinks break, meaning that a normal day's play may
finish thirty minutes late with the side bowling their required overs on
time after allowances are considered.
Today
South Africa had only bowled 38.4 overs when the batsmen accepted the offer
of bad light at 4.23p.m. On the third day, we'll start seven minutes early
and plan to bowl 92 overs for the day. Therefore another eleven overs are
effectively lost to the game from day two.
If we
had left the field after 4.30p.m.on either day, we would commence on time
the next morning and not make up any overs at all. We are also limited to
only playing for thirty minutes of overtime at the end of a day in order to
complete the required number of overs.
In
better light conditions today, South Africa would have continued to bowl
until 5p.m. and then be required to complete the over in progress at that
time. They would not have bowled the missing 13.2 overs in 37 minutes so any
overs not bowled at 5p.m. would have been lost.
Now I hope that I haven't confused you, but the new conditions (from 1
October 2004) do seem to be easier to interpret than previous conditions
relating to Law 16.
I hope
my explanation assists you and answers your question.
Cheers
Daryl
|
| Ashok of India |
Ashok from
India was watching the first Test in
Kanpur
on the final day when Murali Kartik trapped Martin van Jaarsveld in front to
win an l.b.w. verdict from the umpire.
“Just about 10 minutes ago you gave M van Jaarsveld out lbw to Murali
Kartik. Do you think it was the right decision?
The ball certainly pitched on line and we could see the off stump, but the
ball also turned a lot!
Does that matter at all? What I mean is do you have to take it into account
whether the ball turned or not or does the decision depend on whether the
ball was in line only?
Say hi from me to Sachin Tendulkar please!”
|
Thanks for
your questions, Ashok
At the time
of giving my decision, I certainly thought that it was the right decision. I
haven’t yet seen a replay but at the end of each day, we have the third
umpire and the referee to confer with about our decisions. They didn’t
indicate to me that there was anything wrong with the decision so I’m
assuming that it was correct.
Like
you, I also observed that the ball turned but considered that it was hitting
the pad in line with the stumps and that it would have hit the off stump if
the pad had not been in the way.
To give
a batsman out, we must consider how much the ball is turning and believe
that it would have hit the stumps, had it not contacted the batsman’s body.
That is our final consideration after we are sure that it has (1) pitched in
line from stumps to stumps, or outside the off stump (2) not been first
struck by the batsman nor has first hit a glove holding the bat and (3) has
struck the batsman in line with the stumps, unless no shot is offered.
You may
be interested to know that I.C.C. will eventually provide me with a DVD
showing every appeal that I answered in that game. Also included will be an
independent analysis of every decision and a series of scores and
percentages calculated on my performance.
You can
now understand that we have plenty to consider when that ball strikes the
pad!
If you
don’t mind, I won’t disturb Sachin by saying hello for you, but if he cares
to log on to this site, he can still get the message!
Cheers
Daryl
|
| Raj of India |
Raj……somewhere in
India,
wants to know how I feel when I give a batsman out.
“Is it difficult to handle the situation? Have you undergone any special
training for your concentration on the game?”
|
Making
decisions usually ensures that one team is happy and the other may be
disappointed…depending upon how close the decision appears to the players.
When I give
a batsman out, I try to ensure that I am making my decision after carefully
considering all the aspects of the delivery. I am not interested in who the
batsman may be, just whether or not the appeal is justified and whether the
laws require the batsman to be dismissed.
Umpiring
is all about treating everyone equally, regardless of the teams, and without
considering previous experiences with the players. Of course, not every
decision is shown by technology to be correct, but that has always been part
of cricket. If I was as accurate as Hawk-Eye, I would need to be a robot or
be able “to leap tall buildings at a single bound.”
I always
remind myself that the game belongs to the players and if I can complete my
role without bringing myself under notice, then I’ve probably done my job.
Regarding concentration, I have not enjoyed any special training, but only
because I have not located any. I would like to if an appropriate course of
study is available. The I.C.C. appointed a High Performance Manager to
further develop umpires on 1st October 2004, so this may be an area of preparation where the H.P.M. will be
providing guidance.
Cheers
Daryl
|
| Anand of Bangalore |
Anand of
Bangalore has noted that some umpires warm up for a game by standing behind
the non striker’s stumps during net sessions.
“How much does this help an umpire at this level of cricket and do
you practice this?”
|
When I
first visited
India
in 1999, I arrived in
Kanpur and spent the next three days in my
hotel room, catching up on sleep and adjusting to the new environment. When
the Test began, I prepared for the first delivery, not sure how high the
ball would bounce or if it would seam off the pitch or how hot the day would
be. I had much to think about as I had never before umpired in the
sub-continent.
Last week
in
Kanpur, I attended net sessions for both
teams, realizing the benefits of thorough preparation. This opportunity
allows me to renew my acquaintances with players whom I may not have seen
for several months, and to meet any new players. I take the chance to see
where bowlers deliver the ball on the popping crease and generally
acclimatize myself before the big match begins. When that first delivery is
bowled, I don’t feel as if I am starting a new season…I feel prepared for
action.
You may
ask why I have changed my preparations from 1999 to 2004. The I.C.C. created
an elite panel of umpires in 2002, so I am now employed full time as an
umpire. If I am to be regarded as a professional and if I want to retain my
position on the panel, I must prepare myself accordingly. To give myself
every chance to perform at my best, I need to be prepared physically and
mentally. Batsmen and bowlers have adopted new training methods and
routines, so umpires are now moving in the right direction.
Cheers
Daryl
|
| Ganesh of Chennai |
Ganesh
of Chennai
has an
interesting idea. He thinks the captain who loses the toss should be able to
select his final team after the toss.
“That I think sort of evens out the advantage of winning the toss. The
losing captain can decide on whether to play an extra spinner or pace bowler
or extra batsman based on the decision of the captain winning the toss. I
would like to have your valuable opinion on that.” |
Well
Ganesh…I must say that I like the game as it stands at the moment and I
wouldn’t be in favour of your notion. When the coin goes into the air, both
captains have prepared their teams, selecting the eleven players who they
believe can best achieve a victory. The players all await the outcome of the
toss to see whether they are in the field or having first bat. The twelfth
men have been decided and all players are mentally preparing for their roles
in the game. Maybe I’m too conservative but I think to juggle around with a
team at this time, just wouldn’t be cricket.
Winning the
toss is acknowledged as being an advantage so why would we seek to nullify
this position?
Thanks
for the suggestion, though. We don’t improve ourselves unless we are
challenged, so well done.
Cheers
Daryl
|
| Colin
of Adelaide asks.....
Michael of Queensland
|
“I
appreciate you may not be able to divulge too much, but I'll ask anyway
- is sledging the problem that the media and some cricket officials make
it out to be? Are the Aussies the worst at it? Does it ever get
personal, or is it as I would expect in the case of the Aussies,
comments directed at technique to get under the skin of the batsman or
to put doubt in his mind? How much banter is returned by the batsmen?
It certainly looks like Matt Hayden is happy to engage in dialogue with
the bowlers.”
What are the most overthrows you can have. A friend told me once
that they were playing, and ran three runs, the ball was thrown (relay) but
skewed off the side of the hand and went over the boundary rope, hence the
umpire signalled 6. The total was 9 runs for that shot. I told him that this
was wrong as you can only hit a six if it’s struck off the bat. He
disagreed. I disagreed with him. What’s the deal? |
As long
as I’ve been involved in cricket, players have indulged in what is
loosely termed
“sledging.” It is almost exclusively the fielding side who make comments, obviously to unsettle
the batsman. A response is rarely forthcoming and only serves to fuel the supplier. Some batsman
may take on the opponent verbally, but it is generally accepted that the best response comes with
the bat. On many occasions, this annoying tactic works, and that is why is continues, probably at
all levels of competition.
Much sledging is humorous and is directed at opponents who are well known to each other.
The late South Australian captain, David Hookes once brought up a century against New South Wales at Adelaide Oval in a
Sheffield Shield clash. As he raised his bat to acknowledge the praise of the home crowd, Greg Matthews reminded Hookesy
that he himself had scored four Test centuries, playing as a spin bowler. It was a barbed reminder to Hookes who only scored
a single Test century in his career as a batsman. Before lowering his bat, Hookes retorted that he had not written a book about
himself after only playing a handful of Test matches. Apparently David believed that Greg had been guilty of that claim.
Matthews responded by saying that he had never had the opportunity to play in Kandy, where Hookes scored 143 not out in
a team total of 4/514. The implication was that Sri Lanka in 1983 hardly rated as an opponent, so that century was of lesser
value. Eventually my partner, Steve Davis intervened. I then realized that I could have done so myself, but I was enjoying the
Batsmen are often reminded of their previous performances against the opponent, such as how poorly they handled the shorter
delivery, or their slow running between the wickets.
There is occasionally someone who loses the plot and crosses the line with an abusive comment. An incident between
Ramnaresh Sarwan and Glenn McGrath in a Test in Antigua apparently contained personal insults and the cricket world
witnessed an ugly moment. Seeing two players standing face to face, obviously both agitated and insulting each other, was
At the international level, the I.C.C. has implemented tougher penalties for offenders and incidents have been reduced. The
prospect of being fined or suspended has been a contributing factor to this improvement.
At lower levels in Australia, I am unsure if sledging is currently a serious issue. I can be sure that it still continues.
It does seem to be part of the Australian game.
Thanks for your question about boundaries. I am
pleased to tell you that you are on the ball
with your interpretation
about the incident that you described. Any attempt to throw the ball,
whether it passes the stumps or simply dribbles out of the fieldsman's hand
and crosses the rope nearby, will be considered as a boundary
overthrow...and four runs will be added to the score. Any runs completed,
and the run in progress if the batsmen have crossed at the instant of the
fieldsman's act of throwing, will also count. A boundary six can only be
achieved by a hit off the bat, or a glove holding the bat, if it can carry
that far.
As for nominating the most runs possible from an
overthrow, I guess there is no limit. The ball could continually be
overthrown from one side of the field to the other, with the batsmen
scampering back and forth. But that's not likely. Most often, it's a
matter of the batsmen running for a sharp single and the four extra runs
coming with the direct hit attempt that misses.
|
| Jim
Fulford of Adelaide |
Adam Gilchrist -
given not
out by
the umpire - walked -
how should he
be recorded as being
out - "caught or retired"?
|
Adam Gilchrist certainly
did ‘walk’ in the semi final victory over Sri Lanka. He obviously knew that
he had struck the ball before it was caught by keeper Kumar Sangakkara, even
if the umpire didn’t think so and if the t.v. replays were inconclusive.
This is an interesting question but he must surely be recorded as out
‘caught’ as this is what he is conceding to the world by his action.
It
is always refreshing and somewhat surprising to see a batsman leave his
crease and head off, without looking at the umpire. I must be honest and
admit that I didn’t practice this when I batted during my modest career.
The fielding side rarely had to wait very long before the next chance was
given anyway!
I
recall giving Jonty Rhodes out to a bat pad catch taken by the same Sri
Lankan keeper in a Test in Kandy in July 2000. I was convinced that the
ball had been edged onto pad before being caught. Jonty departed without as
much as a second glance but he was unusually quiet when the Proteas took the
field. I asked about the strange silence and he informed me that he hadn’t
hit the ball at all. He reminded me that when fielding, he only appealed
when a batsman struck the ball. Similarly, when batting, he would walk if he
edged a ball to the keeper. He suggested that in future I should hesitate
for a moment to allow him to guide me! I asked if the whole team was going
to apply that approach.
Now wouldn’t that make the umpire’s job a little easier.
What a great character
he has been for the past decade. He will be sorely missed……and definitely
was by South Africa in the preliminary round of the 2003 World Cup.
|
| |
|
