Print

[Shukla]

Suppose a batsman skies a bouncer. Thinking he will be caught by the bowler, he starts to walk towards the pavilion that is behind the stumps he was at. Now if the bowler drops the catch but instead throws down the wicket, is the batsman runout for being out of the crease while the ball is not dead. Is there a difference if the pavilion is at the opposite end?

[pieterSAN]

I think if it is clear that the batsman is walking the umpire will rule him not out because he is not attempting the run.

[dhruvdeepak]

yeah pietersan is right. you cannot be dismissed if you are not attempting a run. there is one instance i remember with ramiz raja in the '92 WC. he was caught of a no-ball. he didnt hear the no ball and began to walk off. the WI fielder quickly went and took off the bails in an attempt to run him out. but he was not dismissed as he wasnt attempting a run

[Rocky]

yeah pietersan is right. you cannot be dismissed if you are not attempting a run. there is one instance i remember with ramiz raja in the '92 WC. he was caught of a no-ball. he didnt hear the no ball and began to walk off. the WI fielder quickly went and took off the bails in an attempt to run him out. but he was not dismissed as he wasnt attempting a run

If the pavilion was at the non-strikers end and he wandered down the pitch, some umpires might construe it as attempting a single and give him out.

[Shukla]

I guess in this case then the decision would be based on umpire's judgement.

[pieterSAN]

yeah pietersan is right. you cannot be dismissed if you are not attempting a run. there is one instance i remember with ramiz raja in the '92 WC. he was caught of a no-ball. he didnt hear the no ball and began to walk off. the WI fielder quickly went and took off the bails in an attempt to run him out. but he was not dismissed as he wasnt attempting a run

If the pavilion was at the non-strikers end and he wandered down the pitch, some umpires might construe it as attempting a single and give him out.

I would say this is highly unlikely. If the ball were skied you could clearly judge the intention of the batsman based on the relative posititions of the striker and the non-striker.

[toney]

I have seen the no ball decisions going in favour of the batsman (Astle in his first ODI against India). But I am not so sure about the dropped catch and ensuing run out. I wonder if we can confirm this.

[inoc]

the batsman is out if found out of his ground.
therefore as per the question if the pavilion is in front of the wicket and the batsman is found out of his ground he is out.

the law is very clear in this aspect:

Law 38 (Run out)

1. Out Run out
(a) Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if at any time while the ball is in play
(i) he is out of his ground
and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side.

(b) (a) above shall apply even though No ball has been called and whether or not a run is being attempted, except in the circumstances of Law 39.3(b) (Not out Stumped). this law 39 does not apply in this question

2. Batsman not Run out
Notwithstanding 1 above, a batsman is not out Run out if
(a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down.

(b) the ball has not subsequently been touched again by a fielder, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride, before the wicket is put down.

(c) the ball, having been played by the striker, or having come off his person, directly strikes a helmet worn by a fielder and without further contact with him or any other fielder rebounds directly on to the wicket. However, the ball remains in play and either batsman may be Run out in the circumstances of 1 above if a wicket is subsequently put down.

(d) he is out Stumped. See Law 39.1(b) (Out Stumped).

(e) he is out of his ground, not attempting a run and his wicket is fairly put down by the wicket-keeper without the intervention of another member of the fielding side, if No ball has been called. See Law 39.3(b) (Not out Stumped).

[avinashgodkhindi]

If the batsmen is moving towards the pavilion thats behind his stumps he is not out in any circumstances, unless he crosses the boundarty rope. The ball would have to reach the stratosphere and come for that to happen. If the batsmen in walking towards to a pavilion thats towards the bowling end he would be judged out. Why ? Because along with looking for a run, random strolling out of the crease when the bowl is not dead can also consitiute a run out. See the batsmen can see that the catch is dropped and suddenly start running for a single.But if he was bowled of a no ball thats a totally different scenario as the batsmen clearly thought he was out , asumed the ball was dead and started to walk off. here the batsmen if aware that until the catch has not been made the ball is not dead.

[pieterSAN]

the batsman is out if found out of his ground.
therefore as per the question if the pavilion is in front of the wicket and the batsman is found out of his ground he is out.

the law is very clear in this aspect:

Law 38 (Run out)

1. Out Run out
(a) Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if at any time while the ball is in play
(i) he is out of his ground
and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side.

(b) (a) above shall apply even though No ball has been called and whether or not a run is being attempted, except in the circumstances of Law 39.3(b) (Not out Stumped). this law 39 does not apply in this question

2. Batsman not Run out
Notwithstanding 1 above, a batsman is not out Run out if
(a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down.

(b) the ball has not subsequently been touched again by a fielder, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride, before the wicket is put down.

(c) the ball, having been played by the striker, or having come off his person, directly strikes a helmet worn by a fielder and without further contact with him or any other fielder rebounds directly on to the wicket. However, the ball remains in play and either batsman may be Run out in the circumstances of 1 above if a wicket is subsequently put down.

(d) he is out Stumped. See Law 39.1(b) (Out Stumped).

(e) he is out of his ground, not attempting a run and his wicket is fairly put down by the wicket-keeper without the intervention of another member of the fielding side, if No ball has been called. See Law 39.3(b) (Not out Stumped).

I know that this law was effected once in the past (can't remember the details) and was never enforced since. I assumed that this meant the law had been modified but I guess not.  Perhaps it is one of those ancient "spirit of cricket" things.

[inoc]

This what nearly happenned today.

RP was caught in the outfield of a free hit. he forgot that and thinking he was out walked towards the pavilion when HS had him run out. not the exact situation but similar.

[Rocky]

yeah pietersan is right. you cannot be dismissed if you are not attempting a run. there is one instance i remember with ramiz raja in the '92 WC. he was caught of a no-ball. he didnt hear the no ball and began to walk off. the WI fielder quickly went and took off the bails in an attempt to run him out. but he was not dismissed as he wasnt attempting a run

If the pavilion was at the non-strikers end and he wandered down the pitch, some umpires might construe it as attempting a single and give him out.

I would say this is highly unlikely. If the ball were skied you could clearly judge the intention of the batsman based on the relative posititions of the striker and the non-striker.

This is what happened to Robin Peterson yesterday.
The umpire gave him out even though he was clearly not attempting a run.
So you see, cricket IS stranger than life.

[suraj]

Umpires were playing for India to even things

[Rocky]

Umpires were playing for India to even things

And Robin Peterson too, I presume. 

[dhruvdeepak]

similar episode happened today in the SL vs NZ match with Murali getting runout when it looked like he left his crease to congratulate Sangakarra on his 100...

[Shukla]

jeez..i asked this question thinking that it is a rare occurence..now it has happened a couple of times since i asked. makes me look an ass. 

[justforkix]

jeez..i asked this question thinking that it is a rare occurence..now it has happened a couple of times since i asked. makes me look an ass. 

Just means HS, KKD, Fleming, McCullum are part of this DG 

[avinashgodkhindi]

McCullum's done it in the past ask the zimplayer Mpofu