Cricket rules and laws

Lee wrote:Not out, no ball, over waist high on the full when it passed the batsman.  

how does the ball then goes past above waist height yet hits his stumps, you've been conned like the umpire in the height of the ball earlier than when it arrived at the batsman................i was a batsman & i wish i got deliveries like that

Should have been out, didn't appear to be above the waist as it passed the batsman.

Too many bowlers on this site

I have a question for all the cricket experts out there
How many ways can you be dismissed

I'm going 7

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I'm going 7

Can you name them

there's more than 7, i always thought it was 11, but here goes what i can think of

bowled
caught & bowled
hit wicket
caught
timed out
run out
stumped
man cad (is that still a dismissal ?)
hit the ball twice (apart from protecting the stumps)
handled the ball
obstructing the field

can't think if there is any others

as mentioned by scrappy below lbw

L
B
Watson

ah i said that in my head & didn't type it, thanks scrappy.....will now edit it

there is another ''new rule''...........
''the tv umpire''

Are these considered dismissals ?
Retired Hurt
Retired

Scrappy wrote:Are these considered dismissals ?
Retired Hurt
Retired

No, they are counted as red ink when doing averages, plus off course they aren't actual dismissals

IMO retired is counted as a dismissal, retired hurt isn't.

In modes of dismissal, caught & bowled is counted as just caught, a mankad would be counted as run out.

blacky wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I'm going 7

Can you name them

Bowled
Caught
LBWatson
Run Out
Stumped
Hit Wicket
Handled Ball

I missed Timed Out.
IS Hit the ball twice the same as obstructing the field? Not sure on that one.
Retired is probably out too.

Mankad is run out

Lee wrote:IMO retired is counted as a dismissal, retired hurt isn't.

In modes of dismissal, caught & bowled is counted as just caught, a mankad would be counted as run out.

corporate bookies have caught & bowled & caught as two separate dismissals

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:

blacky wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I'm going 7

Can you name them

Bowled
Caught
LBWatson
Run Out
Stumped
Hit Wicket
Handled Ball

I missed Timed Out.
IS Hit the ball twice the same as obstructing the field? Not sure on that one.
Retired is probably out too.

Mankad is run out

There are ten ways to be dismissed. Hit the ball twice is different to obstructing the field. OTF would include interfering with a fieldsman so they cant catch the ball or deliberately shielding the stumps so you cant be run out. Can't remember anyone being given out hit the ball twice.

Saw a news report today of a game where a batsmen was bowled with the middle stump being knocked out completely but both bails remaining intact.

How could this be you ask?
It seems that the laws of physics were put to the test, but it happened and photos were taken.

So what was the result?
The umpire gave the player out.

It appears that this was the correct call, as even though the bails were not broken the law states that if the stump is completely removed from the ground that constitutes dismissal.

This probably the same as when for example a keeper accidentally knocks the bails off and must pull the stump from the ground to gain a run out decision.

In the instance mentioned above, apparently both sides were satisfied with the umpire's call.

Chambo
Hopefully this article explains your question


www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/moonee-valley-batsman-jatinder-singh-given-out-in-one-in-a-lifetime-dismissal/news-story/4028a9f0fbf5cb2098dc30c1416395bd

The article explains this as a  'once in a lifetime dismissal'
However , I have played in more than one  game of cricket when players have been bowled when a stump has been dislodged, but no bails fell off ...

What would be interesting is if the stump is knocked over a bit, but not completely out of the ground and the bails remain intact.
In that instance, I am not so sure it should be given out.

There have been many times that the ball has fit the stumps albeit gently enough that the bails have not be dislodged. The batsman is not given out in these circumstances. So what is the difference between a slight knock and one that moves the stumps a bit? Not much I suspect.

I think the laws are written such that if the bails are prematurely dislodged by a fielder, then the stump must be removed to gain dismissal.

Similarly where the bails are not removed, the stump still needs to be removed out of the ground for the stumps to constitute having been broken.

Would anyone disagree with this interpretation?

Good question by Chambo in his first paragragh
It would be not out ?

There have been instances where stumps are hit and the bails stay intact
Examples
When balls roll onto the stumps off the bat or batsman's body usually without great force
When the ball has glanced the stump from the bowlers delivery and no bails dislodged
Both those examples are deemed as not out
So you would think a partially knocked over stump would be the same rule

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:What would be interesting is if the stump is knocked over a bit, but not completely out of the ground and the bails remain intact.
In that instance, I am not so sure it should be given out.

There have been many times that the ball has fit the stumps albeit gently enough that the bails have not be dislodged. The batsman is not given out in these circumstances. So what is the difference between a slight knock and one that moves the stumps a bit? Not much I suspect.

I think the laws are written such that if the bails are prematurely dislodged by a fielder, then the stump must be removed to gain dismissal.

Similarly where the bails are not removed, the stump still needs to be removed out of the ground for the stumps to constitute having been broken.

Would anyone disagree with this interpretation?

If the bails have not been dislodged then it is Not Out regardless of contact to the stumps.
If a stump has been completely removed and the bails haven't moved I would suspect superglue!

I agree with your interpretation

I was 'keeping once at Collins Reserve when a batsman played and missed and the ball came through to me.

I told the slips fielders I thought the ball had gone through the stumps. They all laughed.

I took the ball to the stumps and it just passed through a slightly wider part between middle and leg stumps at the top.

They still didn't believe me, but I was convinced.

You blokes probably put the stumps in, so its your own fault!

Did you leave it to some bloke who had been on the slops the night before to set them up?

Lee wrote:I was 'keeping once at Collins Reserve when a batsman played and missed and the ball came through to me.

I told the slips fielders I thought the ball had gone through the stumps.  They all laughed.

I took the ball to the stumps and it just passed through a slightly wider part between middle and leg stumps at the top.

They still didn't believe me, but I was convinced.

Was your home ground from memory

Correct, Chambo AND blacky.