Who is out?

randomer

I have been involved in a debate on the cricket ireland forum with regard to a specific incident, and I would appreciate if any umpires, or people with an interest in the laws of cricket, could perhaps give their opinions.

The scenario is as follows:

The batsman hits a fair delivery towards the bowler, who deflects the ball onto the stumps. The non striker is out of his ground. The ball then ricochets up into the air and is caught by a fielder before it bounces. Who is out?

The original argument put forward was that the striker is out caught, because caught takes precedence over every dismissal other than bowled.

However, I would argue that if a ball is deflected onto the stumps and the batsman is out of his ground, upon appeal he will be given out. Although the ball is not dead immediately, once the appeal is upheld, the ball will be considered to have become dead from the moment of the incident that caused the dismissal, in this case, when the wickets were broken.

The subsequent “catch” would be ignored as it happened after the ball was dead, and the non-striker would be out run out. My argument is based on Laws of Cricket Q and A 23a.

TrueDub

randomer wrote: »

I have been involved in a debate on the cricket ireland forum with regard to a specific incident, and I would appreciate if any umpires, or people with an interest in the laws of cricket, could perhaps give their opinions.

The scenario is as follows:

The batsman hits a fair delivery towards the bowler, who deflects the ball onto the stumps. The non striker is out of his ground. The ball then ricochets up into the air and is caught by a fielder before it bounces. Who is out?

The original argument put forward was that the striker is out caught, because caught takes precedence over every dismissal other than bowled.

However, I would argue that if a ball is deflected onto the stumps and the batsman is out of his ground, upon appeal he will be given out. Although the ball is not dead immediately, once the appeal is upheld, the ball will be considered to have become dead from the moment of the incident that caused the dismissal, in this case, when the wickets were broken.

The subsequent “catch” would be ignored as it happened after the ball was dead, and the non-striker would be out run out. My argument is based on Laws of Cricket Q and A 23a.

I read the debate with interest. Your logic seems sound to me, based on the way you can't have a "double-play" in cricket. I'll ask around.

randomer

TrueDub wrote: »

I read the debate with interest. Your logic seems sound to me, based on the way you can't have a "double-play" in cricket. I'll ask around.

Thanks.

Here is the quote from the laws of cricket Q and A.

Laws Q & A wrote:

23-A Interpretation of ‘ball becomes dead on the dismissal of a batsman’
The Laws now clearly distinguish between a batsman being out and his being dismissed. Does that mean that if, for instance, there is a run out, the ball remains in play between the breaking of the wicket and the umpire giving his decision?

No. It is true that the ball does not become dead merely because there is an appeal, nor even if a batsman is out but he is not dismissed. The ball automatically becomes dead when a batsman is dismissed. If, however, an appeal is upheld, then the ball is to be regarded as having been dead from the moment of the incident which caused his dismissal. In the example quoted, the ball would be regarded as dead from the breaking of the wicket.

djimi

The non-striker is out as the ball becomes a dead ball once a wicket falls.

If the non-striker was deemed to have returned to his crease safely then the catch would stand and the striker would be out.

Ive not read the debate but what are the counter arguements? Its pretty clear cut to me.

djimi

TrueDub wrote: »

I read the debate with interest. Your logic seems sound to me, based on the way you can't have a "double-play" in cricket. I'll ask around.

I always felt they should introduce double play into Twenty20

Renno

With regard to the discussion on CricketEurope, as Paddy O'Hara is one of the world's experts on the Laws, and sits on the committee that has come up with the changes that come in to force in October, I'd say his opinion should be respected!

It doesn't matter how you read the Laws - if the MCC are saying such and such is the correct reading, then they are right.

randomer

Renno wrote: »

With regard to the discussion on CricketEurope, as Paddy O'Hara is one of the world's experts on the Laws, and sits on the committee that has come up with the changes that come in to force in October, I'd say his opinion should be respected!

It doesn't matter how you read the Laws - if the MCC are saying such and such is the correct reading, then they are right.

Thanks Renno! I didn't know who Paddy O'Hara was.

I still think that laws q and a supports the fact that the non-striker is out.

TrueDub

Renno wrote: »

With regard to the discussion on CricketEurope, as Paddy O'Hara is one of the world's experts on the Laws, and sits on the committee that has come up with the changes that come in to force in October, I'd say his opinion should be respected!

It doesn't matter how you read the Laws - if the MCC are saying such and such is the correct reading, then they are right.

I agree that his opinion should be respected, but respectfully I think he's wrong here. It's been known to happen before...

djimi

I have to say in all my years playing cricket Ive never heard that a catch takes precidence over any other form of dismissal, but of course thats not to say its not the case!!! That being the case then the striker would be out, but honestly I have always been under the impression that once the wickets are broken for a successful run out then the ball is deemed dead, and whatever happens once the ball is dead is of no consequence, and that is always how I have interpreted the rules. Id be quite happy to see a written law that proved me wrong tho!!!

randomer

djimi wrote: »

I have to say in all my years playing cricket Ive never heard that a catch takes precidence over any other form of dismissal, but of course thats not to say its not the case!!! That being the case then the striker would be out, but honestly I have always been under the impression that once the wickets are broken for a successful run out then the ball is deemed dead, and whatever happens once the ball is dead is of no consequence, and that is always how I have interpreted the rules. Id be quite happy to see a written law that proved me wrong tho!!!

Bowled does take precendence.

Law 30 wrote:

1. Out Bowled
(a) The striker is out Bowled if his wicket is put down by a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, even if it first touches his bat or person.

(b) Notwithstanding (a) above he shall not be out Bowled if before striking the wicket the ball has been in contact with any other player or with an umpire. He will, however, be subject to Laws 33 (Handled the ball), 37 (Obstructing the field), 38 (Run out) and 39 (Stumped).

2. Bowled to take precedence
The striker is out Bowled if his wicket is put down as in 1 above, even though a decision against him for any other method of dismissal would be justified.

Caught takes precedence over any other dismissal.

Law 32 wrote:

MCC logo1. Out Caught
The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any member of the fielding side and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground.

2. Caught to take precedence
If the criteria of 1 above are met and the striker is not out Bowled, then he is out Caught, even though a decision against either batsman for another method of dismissal would be justified. Runs completed by the batsmen before the completion of the catch will not be scored. Note also Laws 21.6 (Winning hit or extras) and 42.17(b) (Penalty runs).

This law states that the batsman should be out caught, however the argument that I am putting forward is that when you combine this law with the Q and A article on Law 23 the ball is dead before the catch is made and the run out should be the dismissal.

Renno

All dismissals have a precedence. So bowled is ahead of caught - ie if you get an inside edge onto your stumps which then flies through to the keeper, you'd be bowled, not caught.

Caught is also ahead of lbw, so a ball striking pad-bat (and fulfilling all the criteria to be dismissed lbw), would be out caught if it flew to gully who took the catch

The only other way I can think of where you could be caught and then run out in the same delivery, would be simliar to the example above, but a shot ricocheting from a fielder, via the stumps to another fielder without touching the ground at any time.

And for those who don't know of Paddy O'Hara, the exalted company he keeps can be seen from this letter from the ICC outlining the new Law changes.

Renno

Crossed posts.

Referring to that Law 23 Q&A on the MCC site - as Paddy O'Hara says on Cricket Europe, in reality everything would happen in less than a second. Striker would play the shot, ball would hit the bowler's fingertips, ball would hit the stumps, and then fly to a fielder who would catch it. There would be an appeal, and only then would the umpire's mind consider what would happen.

The appeal applies to both the caught and the runout, and hence it has to be the caught that is given. The ball never becomes dead at the instance of the run out, because the batsman would never have been given run out.

However, if the ball hit the stumps, and then flew into the air, giving a 10 second time gap between hitting the stumps and being caught (hypothetically obviously!), then the run out could be given.

djimi

I understand where Paddy is coming from, and Im pretty sure I stand corrected about this, but Im still a little confused by (from the law 23 Q&A)

"If, however, an appeal is upheld, then the ball is to be regarded as having been dead from the moment of the incident which caused his dismissal."

which would suggest that, upon the run out appeal being successful, the ball was dead when it hit the stumps not when the umpire gave the batsman out, and that being the case the catch would be irrelevant as it happened after the ball was declared dead. It seems to contradict how a dead ball works to say that a dismissal that happens after the ball is declared dead takes precedence.

I dunno, maybe Im reading too much into it...!

Renno

The sequence of events is

1. A flurry of action, ball hitting bowler, stumps and being caught
2. An appeal
3. The umpire considers the appeal, which has two components, a run out bit and a caught bit. The appeal applies to both "bits" and cannot be directed towards one.
4. They are both out, but the catch takes precedence
5. So the strike is out, caught

The incident which causes his dismissal is the catch, and that is when the ball is dead from.

TrueDub

From Alan Tuffery, Education officer of the LCUSA, via CricketEurope:

Caught or run out

Michael O'Herlihy's logic is impeccable -- but not quite the same as that in the Laws of Cricket. Time is not quite linear in cricket (consider when a wide is scored, as opposed to the point of decision). In the case of caught or run out, as discussed, the catch is part of the initial action of the striker hitting the ball, so it is considered first (because it has the priority as a dismissal).

Who said it was a simple game!

With both Paddy O'Hara and Tuffers wading in on the side of caught, a mere mortal like me must concede that this is the official interpretion.

djimi

the catch is part of the initial action of the striker hitting the ball

That was the part I was unsure about. That being the case, then the catch happens first and whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant.