Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Rocky]

As I read it, the no ball law says that even though the umpire calls no ball, the ball is not dead until all the action related to the ball is complete.
Is is different when it comes to the last played ball of the match when only a run is required to win?
Does the ball become dead as soon as the umpire calls no ball?
In the last match if Sehwag had not heard the no ball call and had hit it to the outfield and tried to get a single and was run out.
Which is correct:
1. Sehwag is not out, India win
2. Sehwag is out, India win
When does the match end then? When the no ball call is made or when the run out has occured?
??Confused??

[teamindia]

Interesting question!
I don't know the existing rule but I think the game should be considered ON as long as the ball is not COMPLETE.
And a ball completes when all the actions on the filed on that ball are complete or the ball is out of the field.

[Blwe_torch]

I agree. I believe, the ICC must clear the confusion and give Sehwag the century that he deserves.

[teamindia]

As I read it, the no ball law says that even though the umpire calls no ball, the ball is not dead until all the action related to the ball is complete.
Is is different when it comes to the last played ball of the match when only a run is required to win?
Does the ball become dead as soon as the umpire calls no ball?
In the last match if Sehwag had not heard the no ball call and had hit it to the outfield and tried to get a single and was run out.
Which is correct:
1. Sehwag is not out, India win
2. Sehwag is out, India win
When does the match end then? When the no ball call is made or when the run out has occured?
??Confused??

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/sri-lanka-tri-series/top-stories/Loophole-in-law-Cant-help-it-says-MCC/articleshow/6327597.cms

I read following article above and as per the current law result would be 1. Sehwag is not out, India win

[Rocky]

Here the situation was one run to win.
The ball became dead as soon as the umpire called 'no ball'.
India win but Sehwag is 99(100).

Now consider the situation in the match if two runs were required to win.
Then the ball becomes dead after the six is hit! India win and Sehwag gets 105(100)!


So there are different rules for the same ball, depending on how many runs are required!

I think that is ridiculous and sheer nonsense.

[dextrous]

I still don't quite get how the ball went dead...

[WicketView]

I still don't quite get how the ball went dead...

It is confusing.

As far as I understand the point is that as soon as the no-ball was bowled, India got a run. This completed the match as India won. Therefore the ball was dead. Thus if Sehwag was caught instead, the result would have still been the same.

[dextrous]

I still don't quite get how the ball went dead...

It is confusing.

As far as I understand the point is that as soon as the no-ball was bowled, India got a run. This completed the match as India won. Therefore the ball was dead. Thus if Sehwag was caught instead, the result would have still been the same.

This just isn't cricket! The ball should be completed...

[Cernunnos]

I still don't quite get how the ball went dead...

It is confusing.

As far as I understand the point is that as soon as the no-ball was bowled, India got a run. This completed the match as India won. Therefore the ball was dead. Thus if Sehwag was caught instead, the result would have still been the same.

This just isn't cricket! The ball should be completed...

What's the problem? The instant the game is won, the contest is over and the ball is dead.

The rule has to consistent. Say you need a single to win, and you send the ball towards the boundary, but stopping just short. Potentially you could run three runs, but the game is over when you have finished the first run itself, so why wait for the ball to be picked up by the fielder thrown back to the bowler for it to be declared dead and for victory to be formally completed?

[teamindia]

I still don't quite get how the ball went dead...

It is confusing.

As far as I understand the point is that as soon as the no-ball was bowled, India got a run. This completed the match as India won. Therefore the ball was dead. Thus if Sehwag was caught instead, the result would have still been the same.

This just isn't cricket! The ball should be completed...

What's the problem? The instant the game is won, the contest is over and the ball is dead.

The rule has to consistent. Say you need a single to win, and you send the ball towards the boundary, but stopping just short. Potentially you could run three runs, but the game is over when you have finished the first run itself, so why wait for the ball to be picked up by the fielder thrown back to the bowler for it to be declared dead and for victory to be formally completed?

Consider this scenario. You need one run to win you hit the ball the ball is slowly going towards the boundary and you start running. You complete the run and the then the ball goes beyond boundary. Would the batsman be awarded four or would it be one? Technically the ball should be dead the moment batsman completed the run.