Print

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

[yorker]

Pardon me if I sound too naive but I faced this situation recently in a match. A batsman in my team was given out in these circumstances. I am not sure if it is correct. So, raising this question to experts here.

If a batsman tries to take a run and almost reaches the other end but somehow hits the wicket at the other end.  Is he out ? Would it be different based on situations below?

a)   He hits the wickets with bat, but at the time when the bat hits the wicket he does not have contact with the bat. Bat flies out of his hand and hits wicket (This is what happened in our case)
b)   He hits the wickets with bat in hand

If he is not out then, since he is disturbing the wickets (All three might be out of the ground) shouldn’t he be considered to be obstructing the fielding as the fielders do not have stumps to uproot. I know its not intentionally obstructing but fielders are at disadvantage.

[Blwe_torch]

He is supposed to be not out...as far as my knowledge goes.

[ramshorns]

Pardon me if I sound too naive but I faced this situation recently in a match. A batsman in my team was given out in these circumstances. I am not sure if it is correct. So, raising this question to experts here.

If a batsman tries to take a run and almost reaches the other end but somehow hits the wicket at the other end.  Is he out ? Would it be different based on situations below?

a)   He hits the wickets with bat, but at the time when the bat hits the wicket he does not have contact with the bat. Bat flies out of his hand and hits wicket (This is what happened in our case)
b)   He hits the wickets with bat in hand

If he is not out then, since he is disturbing the wickets (All three might be out of the ground) shouldn’t he be considered to be obstructing the fielding as the fielders do not have stumps to uproot. I know its not intentionally obstructing but fielders are at disadvantage.

He is out in scenario a of yours, if the fielder collects the ball and then hits or touch's the stumps or touches the stumps if they are uprooted(because of your description) and the batsman is short of the crease at that point.

In scenario b if he hits the wicket with bat in hand that means he is in the crease and cannot be out.

It cannot be an obstruction of field as the scenario I described for a covers it when the stumps are uprooted.  Again for most part here umpires have to make a judgement call.

[yorker]

[/quote]He is out in scenario a of yours, if the fielder collects the ball and then hits or touch's the stumps or touches the stumps if they are uprooted(because of your description) and the batsman is short of the crease at that point.

In scenario b if he hits the wicket with bat in hand that means he is in the crease and cannot be out.

It cannot be an obstruction of field as the scenario I described for a covers it when the stumps are uprooted.  Again for most part here umpires have to make a judgement call.
[/quote]

Rams,
In our case fielders did not had ball anywhere near the wickets. He was given out because he hit the stumps. Also I am talking obstruction because there is a chance that the bat might slip out of his hand before he reaches the crease and hit the stumps causing all three stumps to be uprooted. So, when fielders tries to get him out there are no stumps to hit.

[ramshorns]

He is out in scenario a of yours, if the fielder collects the ball and then hits or touch's the stumps or touches the stumps if they are uprooted(because of your description) and the batsman is short of the crease at that point.

In scenario b if he hits the wicket with bat in hand that means he is in the crease and cannot be out.

It cannot be an obstruction of field as the scenario I described for a covers it when the stumps are uprooted.  Again for most part here umpires have to make a judgement call.
[/quote]

Rams,
In our case fielders did not had ball anywhere near the wickets. He was given out because he hit the stumps. Also I am talking obstruction because there is a chance that the bat might slip out of his hand before he reaches the crease and hit the stumps causing all three stumps to be uprooted. So, when fielders tries to get him out there are no stumps to hit.
[/quote]Yorker:Your teammate is not out as far as I can tell. 

Like I said in case if the stumps are uprooted, then all the fielder has to do is collect the ball where the stumps originally are and touch them if they are near if he can.  Then at that point if the batsman is short of crease he is out.  So the question of obstruction does not arise.

Again the umpires are the best judges here.

[ranjit]

Ramshorns is spot on. Your teammate is not out as far as I can tell.

[ramshorns]

Ramshorns is spot on. Your teammate is not out as far as I can tell.

Thanks Ranjit for the confirmation. 

So Yorker the guy that gave your teammate out gets a good old kick in his behind and I get an Applause.

[yorker]

I gave you an applause. Now I have to go find that umpire and do what needs to be done. 

[Cover Point]

I gave you an applause. Now I have to go find that umpire and do what needs to be done. 

U must be playing in Chicago's ACC league. We have such "super.... Buckneresque" umpires here!

[yorker]

Sorry CP. Would have been great playing with you there in Chicago. I am in NJ

[inoc]

Yorker

There a few things you have asked here, I will try and clarify each one.
First of all your heading mentions rules there aren’t any – they are laws of cricket not rules.

A batsman cannot be out if he disturbs the nonstrikers wicket.
Hit wicket pertains to hitting the strikers wicket while attempting to play a ball/ leave a ball or in setting off for the first run( you cannot be out hit wicket after you have started running) it can be part of your bat, body or anything you are wearing whether in contact with you or not.
I think this answers a and b parts of your query.

Regarding subsequent posts in this thread :

you cannot get a batsman run out by merely touching the wicket with or without a ball. The wicket has to be put down.

A wicket is put down when either

1.   at least one bail is completely removed from the stump
2.   or one of the stumps is uprooted
3.   if the other bail is still on the stump then either removing that bail or uprooting any stump
4.   if there is no bail then uprooting one of the stumps
5.   if all the stumps are uprooted then to put one of them back where they were supposed to be and then uprooting it.

The final putting down of the wicket has to be done by the arm in which the ball is held.

The friend in question was not out unless the umpire thought that he deliberately stopped the fielding side from putting down the wicket by throwing his bat and uprooting all stumps so that he could make his ground. This does not seem to be the scenario here. He would then be out obstructing the field of course.

[suraj]

Yorker

There a few things you have asked here, I will try and clarify each one.
First of all your heading mentions rules there aren’t any – they are laws of cricket not rules.

A batsman cannot be out if he disturbs the nonstrikers wicket.
Hit wicket pertains to hitting the strikers wicket while attempting to play a ball/ leave a ball or in setting off for the first run( you cannot be out hit wicket after you have started running) it can be part of your bat, body or anything you are wearing whether in contact with you or not.
I think this answers a and b parts of your query.

Regarding subsequent posts in this thread :

you cannot get a batsman run out by merely touching the wicket with or without a ball. The wicket has to be put down.

A wicket is put down when either

1.   at least one bail is completely removed from the stump
2.   or one of the stumps is uprooted
3.   if the other bail is still on the stump then either removing that bail or uprooting any stump
4.   if there is no bail then uprooting one of the stumps
5.   if all the stumps are uprooted then to put one of them back where they were supposed to be and then uprooting it.

The final putting down of the wicket has to be done by the arm in which the ball is held.

The friend in question was not out unless the umpire thought that he deliberately stopped the fielding side from putting down the wicket by throwing his bat and uprooting all stumps so that he could make his ground. This does not seem to be the scenario here. He would then be out obstructing the field of course.

So eventually he was still not out right (assuming unintentional knocking o fthe stumps)

[yorker]

inoc,

Thanks for the detail explanation. Appreciate your reply and ofcourse an applause.

I did change the title of the thread.   

[RicePlateReddy]

Wow, a lot of responses on this, but not what I would have agreed with. I verified the cricket laws and it justifies what I think:

-- If he intentionally threw his bat at the stumps, to disturb the fielding side from running him out he is most certainly out obstructing the field. See Law 37: "Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the opposing side by word or action".

-- If not, the fielding side needs to put back the uprooted stump and then strike it down. See Law 28: "If the wicket has already been broken or put down, (a) above shall apply to any stump or stumps still in the ground. Any fielder may replace a stump or stumps, in accordance with 3 above, in order to have an opportunity of putting the wicket down."

The umpire's judgement only comes in with respect to obstructing the field. Else, the umpire is bound to follow the law. (Note this excludes Steve Bucknor).

I would appreciate reference to the existing laws if anything stated above is incorrect. (Including Jamaican civil law if you are defending Steve Bucknor).