Tweet
..ODI...but in doing so he dislodged the stumps and bails at the bowler's end in the process....now shouldn't that be a 'no-ball' or called a 'dead ball'?
-
-
I don't know the rule or even if there is one for that...but I don't think no-ball... maybe a dead ball could be called but I think that's at the ump's discretion...Peter R
-
It should not discretionary. Let's say the non-striker was backing up too much (trying to get a run) and the bowler removes the bails but the batsman is not given out - if he makes his ground - isn't that a dead-ball? Shouldn't that be the case here then - bails broken, ball not bowled?
I know that in teh case of a failed runout (batsman in crease) but bails removed, a second (or third..) run can be taken and play continues.
Please consult your rules manual and give a ruling sir.Comment
-
Dem kinda homework hard sah... the nearest I could find on short notice that could possibly apply is Law 23.4 (vi) (anything that might distract the striker deliberate or otherwise). Note Law 23.4 (iii)that specifically refers to the STRIKER'S bails. If they fall off before the striker has an opportunity to play the ball it's a dead ball. I didn't see anything referring to the non-striker's bails being dislodged by whatever means.
BTW. I think this set of rules I am looking at is not quite up to date as its speaks about runners who I thought were no longer allowed.
http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit...all,49,AR.htmlPeter R
Comment
-
Thanks boss. Time to create new rules. I think I'll write cricinfo.Comment
Comment