Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.

Howzat?


max.it

On 9 Aug, 23:38, (max.it) wrote:
> Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
> keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
> sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>
> Howzat?
>
> max.it

not out, unless the striker (a) is out of his ground when the bails
are taken off or (b) sits on the wicket hard enough to uproot a stump,
in which case out (a) stumped or (b) hit wicket?

In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>
>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>
>Howzat?
>

It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was 
stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH

>
>max.it

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:47:02 +0100, Robert Henderson
 wrote:

>In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>>
>>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
>>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
>>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>>
>>Howzat?
>>
>
>It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was 
>stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH
>

The batsman remains in his crease.. The fact that the batsman is in or
still in the act of playing his shot when he sits on his wicket makes
him vulnerable to hit wicket. 
If the batsman had regained his balance and then walked back into his
wicket, he would be not out as the opportunity for the dismissal would
have passed with the attempted shot.
The time period in which the dismissal is possible is very short



max.it

On 10 Aug, 20:56, (max.it) wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:47:02 +0100, Robert Henderson
>
>  wrote:
> >In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>
> >>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
> >>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
> >>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>
> >>Howzat?
>
> >It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was
> >stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH
>
> The batsman remains in his crease.. The fact that the batsman is in or
> still in the act of playing his shot when he sits on his wicket makes
> him vulnerable to hit wicket.
> If the batsman had regained his balance and then walked back into his
> wicket, he would be not out as the opportunity for the dismissal would
> have passed with the attempted shot.

No, can still be out hit wicket in setting of for the first run.

So the answer is "out" then?

He would only be out if if he uprooted a stump in this situation as
the keeper has already put down the wicket by removing the bails.

> The time period in which the dismissal is possible is very short

Just to clarify, there is no "time period in which the dismissal is
possible", whether he is in or out depends on his actions, not how
long it takes.  If the batsman loses his balance and stumbles around
the wicket half a dozen times trying to regain it before sitting on
them, it is still out.  Normally hit wicket (done it myself) is very
quick, but there is no time limit of any sort.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
 wrote:

>On 10 Aug, 20:56, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:47:02 +0100, Robert Henderson
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>>
>> >>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
>> >>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
>> >>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>>
>> >>Howzat?
>>
>> >It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was
>> >stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH
>>
>> The batsman remains in his crease.. The fact that the batsman is in or
>> still in the act of playing his shot when he sits on his wicket makes
>> him vulnerable to hit wicket.
>> If the batsman had regained his balance and then walked back into his
>> wicket, he would be not out as the opportunity for the dismissal would
>> have passed with the attempted shot.
>
>No, can still be out hit wicket in setting of for the first run.
>
>So the answer is "out" then?
>
>He would only be out if if he uprooted a stump in this situation as
>the keeper has already put down the wicket by removing the bails.
>
>> The time period in which the dismissal is possible is very short
>
>Just to clarify, there is no "time period in which the dismissal is
>possible", whether he is in or out depends on his actions, not how
>long it takes.  If the batsman loses his balance and stumbles around
>the wicket half a dozen times trying to regain it before sitting on
>them, it is still out.  Normally hit wicket (done it myself) is very
>quick, but there is no time limit of any sort.
>

That's wrong.
In the event of the first run. The wicket must be broken immediately
after playing or playing at the ball. 
That seems like the law is giving us a timescale there.

In the case of stumbling around the wicket a half dozen times. That
could not possibly be out as the batsman is neither receiving the ball
nor preparing to receive the ball or is setting off for a first run
immediately after playing or playing at the ball.

max.it

On 11 Aug, 14:03, (max.it) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On 10 Aug, 20:56, (max.it) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:47:02 +0100, Robert Henderson
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>
> >> >>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
> >> >>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
> >> >>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>
> >> >>Howzat?
>
> >> >It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was
> >> >stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH
>
> >> The batsman remains in his crease.. The fact that the batsman is in or
> >> still in the act of playing his shot when he sits on his wicket makes
> >> him vulnerable to hit wicket.
> >> If the batsman had regained his balance and then walked back into his
> >> wicket, he would be not out as the opportunity for the dismissal would
> >> have passed with the attempted shot.
>
> >No, can still be out hit wicket in setting of for the first run.
>
> >So the answer is "out" then?
>
> >He would only be out if if he uprooted a stump in this situation as
> >the keeper has already put down the wicket by removing the bails.
>
> >> The time period in which the dismissal is possible is very short
>
> >Just to clarify, there is no "time period in which the dismissal is
> >possible", whether he is in or out depends on his actions, not how
> >long it takes.  If the batsman loses his balance and stumbles around
> >the wicket half a dozen times trying to regain it before sitting on
> >them, it is still out.  Normally hit wicket (done it myself) is very
> >quick, but there is no time limit of any sort.
>
> That's wrong.
> In the event of the first run. The wicket must be broken immediately
> after playing or playing at the ball.
> That seems like the law is giving us a timescale there.

I was adding clarification to your ambiguous statement ..."opportunity
for the dismissal would have passed with the attempted shot.".  It
clearly doesn't end there if the batsman then immediately sets of for
a run.

Note it only says that one action must occurr immediately after the
other, doesn't say anything about a time limit on the first action.

> In the case of stumbling around the wicket a half dozen times. That
> could not possibly be out as the batsman is neither receiving the ball
> nor preparing to receive the ball or is setting off for a first run
> immediately after playing or playing at the ball.

Wrong, if the batsman is off balance from playing the ball, it still
counts as playing the ball untill he has regained his balance, there
is no time limit as to how long this takes.  Case law is against you,
consider for instance the well known dismissal of Inzy or the Botham
'leg over' dismissal.  In both cases there was a significant delay
between having attempted to hit the ball and them finally breaking the
stumps after having tried to avoid doing so.

The time limit is your own invention.  The laws only discuss the
actions of the striker, not the amount of time over which the actions
take place.  As far as I can see, the only mention of timing in the
law is that setting of for the first run must be immediately after
playing the shot.

To the more interesting point, would the striker have to knock the
stump out of the ground in order to be out in this scenario?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
 wrote:

>On 11 Aug, 14:03, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On 10 Aug, 20:56, (max.it) wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:47:02 +0100, Robert Henderson
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>>
>> >> >>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
>> >> >>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
>> >> >>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>>
>> >> >>Howzat?
>>
>> >> >It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was
>> >> >stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH
>>
>> >> The batsman remains in his crease.. The fact that the batsman is in or
>> >> still in the act of playing his shot when he sits on his wicket makes
>> >> him vulnerable to hit wicket.
>> >> If the batsman had regained his balance and then walked back into his
>> >> wicket, he would be not out as the opportunity for the dismissal would
>> >> have passed with the attempted shot.
>>
>> >No, can still be out hit wicket in setting of for the first run.
>>
>> >So the answer is "out" then?
>>
>> >He would only be out if if he uprooted a stump in this situation as
>> >the keeper has already put down the wicket by removing the bails.
>>
>> >> The time period in which the dismissal is possible is very short
>>
>> >Just to clarify, there is no "time period in which the dismissal is
>> >possible", whether he is in or out depends on his actions, not how
>> >long it takes.  If the batsman loses his balance and stumbles around
>> >the wicket half a dozen times trying to regain it before sitting on
>> >them, it is still out.  Normally hit wicket (done it myself) is very
>> >quick, but there is no time limit of any sort.
>>
>> That's wrong.
>> In the event of the first run. The wicket must be broken immediately
>> after playing or playing at the ball.
>> That seems like the law is giving us a timescale there.
>
>I was adding clarification to your ambiguous statement ..."opportunity
>for the dismissal would have passed with the attempted shot.".  It
>clearly doesn't end there if the batsman then immediately sets of for
>a run.
>
>Note it only says that one action must occurr immediately after the
>other, doesn't say anything about a time limit on the first action.
>
>> In the case of stumbling around the wicket a half dozen times. That
>> could not possibly be out as the batsman is neither receiving the ball
>> nor preparing to receive the ball or is setting off for a first run
>> immediately after playing or playing at the ball.
>
>Wrong, if the batsman is off balance from playing the ball, it still
>counts as playing the ball untill he has regained his balance, there
>is no time limit as to how long this takes.  Case law is against you,
>consider for instance the well known dismissal of Inzy or the Botham
>'leg over' dismissal.  In both cases there was a significant delay
>between having attempted to hit the ball and them finally breaking the
>stumps after having tried to avoid doing so.

I don't suppose they stmbled around the wicket a half dozen times
before breaking it. There would be no problem with the dismissal if
the wicket was broken in the action of playing at the ball. Our
batsman didn't break the wicket in the action of playing the ball. He
broke the wicket after the action was complete.

Botham would have been dismissed under the 1980 code of laws. I don't
know which Inzi incident you mean.

>
>The time limit is your own invention.  The laws only discuss the
>actions of the striker, not the amount of time over which the actions
>take place.  As far as I can see, the only mention of timing in the
>law is that setting of for the first run must be immediately after
>playing the shot.

The time limit is the invention of the ACU&S training panel.

>
>To the more interesting point, would the striker have to knock the
>stump out of the ground in order to be out in this scenario?

I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
covers this". So I would say yes.

max.it

On Aug 11, 4:03 pm, (max.it) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On 11 Aug, 14:03, (max.it) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On 10 Aug, 20:56, (max.it) wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:47:02 +0100, Robert Henderson
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>
> >> >> >>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
> >> >> >>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
> >> >> >>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>
> >> >> >>Howzat?
>
> >> >> >It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was
> >> >> >stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH
>
> >> >> The batsman remains in his crease.. The fact that the batsman is in or
> >> >> still in the act of playing his shot when he sits on his wicket makes
> >> >> him vulnerable to hit wicket.
> >> >> If the batsman had regained his balance and then walked back into his
> >> >> wicket, he would be not out as the opportunity for the dismissal would
> >> >> have passed with the attempted shot.
>
> >> >No, can still be out hit wicket in setting of for the first run.
>
> >> >So the answer is "out" then?
>
> >> >He would only be out if if he uprooted a stump in this situation as
> >> >the keeper has already put down the wicket by removing the bails.
>
> >> >> The time period in which the dismissal is possible is very short
>
> >> >Just to clarify, there is no "time period in which the dismissal is
> >> >possible", whether he is in or out depends on his actions, not how
> >> >long it takes.  If the batsman loses his balance and stumbles around
> >> >the wicket half a dozen times trying to regain it before sitting on
> >> >them, it is still out.  Normally hit wicket (done it myself) is very
> >> >quick, but there is no time limit of any sort.
>
> >> That's wrong.
> >> In the event of the first run. The wicket must be broken immediately
> >> after playing or playing at the ball.
> >> That seems like the law is giving us a timescale there.
>
> >I was adding clarification to your ambiguous statement ..."opportunity
> >for the dismissal would have passed with the attempted shot.".  It
> >clearly doesn't end there if the batsman then immediately sets of for
> >a run.
>
> >Note it only says that one action must occurr immediately after the
> >other, doesn't say anything about a time limit on the first action.
>
> >> In the case of stumbling around the wicket a half dozen times. That
> >> could not possibly be out as the batsman is neither receiving the ball
> >> nor preparing to receive the ball or is setting off for a first run
> >> immediately after playing or playing at the ball.
>
> >Wrong, if the batsman is off balance from playing the ball, it still
> >counts as playing the ball untill he has regained his balance, there
> >is no time limit as to how long this takes.  Case law is against you,
> >consider for instance the well known dismissal of Inzy or the Botham
> >'leg over' dismissal.  In both cases there was a significant delay
> >between having attempted to hit the ball and them finally breaking the
> >stumps after having tried to avoid doing so.
>
> I don't suppose they stmbled around the wicket a half dozen times
> before breaking it.

No, that was obvious exageration to make the point that there is no
time limit, the vunerability depends on the action of the striker, not
the duration.  If the batsman looses his balance in playing the ball,
and is not in control of his movements, any staggering or stumbling as
a result is still part of playing the ball until he regains his
balance, how long that takes is irrelevant.

> There would be no problem with the dismissal if
> the wicket was broken in the action of playing at the ball.

Yes, exactly, recovering your balance if lost is part of playing the
ball.

> Our
> batsman didn't break the wicket in the action of playing the ball. He
> broke the wicket after the action was complete.

not if he lost his balance in playing the shot.  If he had played the
shot, and then later stumbled and broke the wicket, that would be a
different matter (same situation as the Steve Waugh incident)

> Botham would have been dismissed under the 1980 code of laws.

Yes, he'd be out now as well as recovering his balance is part of
playing the ball

> I don't
> know which Inzi incident you mean.

Tried to sweep Panesar, missed, overbalanced, stumbled, tried to jump
over the wickets but didn't jump high enough.  Correctly given out by
the umpire.  It is on youtube.

> >The time limit is your own invention.  The laws only discuss the
> >actions of the striker, not the amount of time over which the actions
> >take place.  As far as I can see, the only mention of timing in the
> >law is that setting of for the first run must be immediately after
> >playing the shot.
>
> The time limit is the invention of the ACU&S training panel.

The more of these teasers I read, the more I worry about the ACU&S
training panel.  They should not be reading into the laws things that
aren't there, especially if they are not in agreement with natural
sense of justice.  As a batsman if I lose balance while playing a
shot, that is my error, and if I put the wicket down as a result I
should be out.  At least that was my view when it happened to me! ;o)

> >To the more interesting point, would the striker have to knock the
> >stump out of the ground in order to be out in this scenario?
>
> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
> covers this". So I would say yes.

Good to see we are all in agreement with that.  TBH, it seems the only
part of the question that is at all complex.

Here is one for your umpire manager, look at the second item in the
Q&A for the hit wicket law on the MCC website, they say the "striker
has the opportunity to play at a wide" as "he can always move towards
it".  Surely the whole point of the wide law is to prevent the bowler
from delivering balls that do not give the striker an opportunity to
play a normal cricket shot?  I thought the A to this Q was rather
glib.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:29:50 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
 wrote:

>On Aug 11, 4:03 pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On 11 Aug, 14:03, (max.it) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On 10 Aug, 20:56, (max.it) wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:47:02 +0100, Robert Henderson
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>>
>> >> >> >>Slow bowler, keeper standing up. Batsman has a swing and misses, the
>> >> >> >>keeper takes the ball and removes the bails just before the batsman
>> >> >> >>sits on his own wicket in the from the momentum of his shot.
>>
>> >> >> >>Howzat?
>>
>> >> >> >It depends on whether he was out  of his crease or not. If out, he was
>> >> >> >stumped. If in, he would be hit wicket. RH
>>
>> >> >> The batsman remains in his crease.. The fact that the batsman is in or
>> >> >> still in the act of playing his shot when he sits on his wicket makes
>> >> >> him vulnerable to hit wicket.
>> >> >> If the batsman had regained his balance and then walked back into his
>> >> >> wicket, he would be not out as the opportunity for the dismissal would
>> >> >> have passed with the attempted shot.
>>
>> >> >No, can still be out hit wicket in setting of for the first run.
>>
>> >> >So the answer is "out" then?
>>
>> >> >He would only be out if if he uprooted a stump in this situation as
>> >> >the keeper has already put down the wicket by removing the bails.
>>
>> >> >> The time period in which the dismissal is possible is very short
>>
>> >> >Just to clarify, there is no "time period in which the dismissal is
>> >> >possible", whether he is in or out depends on his actions, not how
>> >> >long it takes.  If the batsman loses his balance and stumbles around
>> >> >the wicket half a dozen times trying to regain it before sitting on
>> >> >them, it is still out.  Normally hit wicket (done it myself) is very
>> >> >quick, but there is no time limit of any sort.
>>
>> >> That's wrong.
>> >> In the event of the first run. The wicket must be broken immediately
>> >> after playing or playing at the ball.
>> >> That seems like the law is giving us a timescale there.
>>
>> >I was adding clarification to your ambiguous statement ..."opportunity
>> >for the dismissal would have passed with the attempted shot.".  It
>> >clearly doesn't end there if the batsman then immediately sets of for
>> >a run.
>>
>> >Note it only says that one action must occurr immediately after the
>> >other, doesn't say anything about a time limit on the first action.
>>
>> >> In the case of stumbling around the wicket a half dozen times. That
>> >> could not possibly be out as the batsman is neither receiving the ball
>> >> nor preparing to receive the ball or is setting off for a first run
>> >> immediately after playing or playing at the ball.
>>
>> >Wrong, if the batsman is off balance from playing the ball, it still
>> >counts as playing the ball untill he has regained his balance, there
>> >is no time limit as to how long this takes.  Case law is against you,
>> >consider for instance the well known dismissal of Inzy or the Botham
>> >'leg over' dismissal.  In both cases there was a significant delay
>> >between having attempted to hit the ball and them finally breaking the
>> >stumps after having tried to avoid doing so.
>>
>> I don't suppose they stmbled around the wicket a half dozen times
>> before breaking it.
>
>No, that was obvious exageration to make the point that there is no
>time limit, the vunerability depends on the action of the striker, not
>the duration.  If the batsman looses his balance in playing the ball,
>and is not in control of his movements, any staggering or stumbling as
>a result is still part of playing the ball until he regains his
>balance, how long that takes is irrelevant.

Not so obvious. 
I have a clip in my head of a batsman stumbling around (doing laps)
his wicket, and then sitting on it.

At what point would you as umpire intervene in the stumbling?
Would you wait no matter how long for the batsman to regain balance.

>
>> There would be no problem with the dismissal if
>> the wicket was broken in the action of playing at the ball.
>
>Yes, exactly, recovering your balance if lost is part of playing the
>ball.
>
>> Our
>> batsman didn't break the wicket in the action of playing the ball. He
>> broke the wicket after the action was complete.
>
>not if he lost his balance in playing the shot.  If he had played the
>shot, and then later stumbled and broke the wicket, that would be a
>different matter (same situation as the Steve Waugh incident)
>
>> Botham would have been dismissed under the 1980 code of laws.
>
>Yes, he'd be out now as well as recovering his balance is part of
>playing the ball
>
>> I don't
>> know which Inzi incident you mean.
>
>Tried to sweep Panesar, missed, overbalanced, stumbled, tried to jump
>over the wickets but didn't jump high enough.  Correctly given out by
>the umpire.  It is on youtube.

I remember now. That was fairly clear.

>
>> >The time limit is your own invention.  The laws only discuss the
>> >actions of the striker, not the amount of time over which the actions
>> >take place.  As far as I can see, the only mention of timing in the
>> >law is that setting of for the first run must be immediately after
>> >playing the shot.
>>
>> The time limit is the invention of the ACU&S training panel.
>
>The more of these teasers I read, the more I worry about the ACU&S
>training panel.  They should not be reading into the laws things that
>aren't there, especially if they are not in agreement with natural
>sense of justice.  As a batsman if I lose balance while playing a
>shot, that is my error, and if I put the wicket down as a result I
>should be out.  At least that was my view when it happened to me! ;o)

If the striker was stumbling around the wicket the umpire might call
dead ball and make sure the batsman isn't sick or lost his marbles.

>
>> >To the more interesting point, would the striker have to knock the
>> >stump out of the ground in order to be out in this scenario?
>>
>> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
>> covers this". So I would say yes.
>
>Good to see we are all in agreement with that.  TBH, it seems the only
>part of the question that is at all complex.
>
>Here is one for your umpire manager, look at the second item in the
>Q&A for the hit wicket law on the MCC website, they say the "striker
>has the opportunity to play at a wide" as "he can always move towards
>it".  Surely the whole point of the wide law is to prevent the bowler
>from delivering balls that do not give the striker an opportunity to
>play a normal cricket shot?  I thought the A to this Q was rather
>glib.
>

Although the delivery can't be a wide until it has passes the wicket,
it is deemed to be a wide from the moment the ball leaves the hand (if
it is called). 
Every batsman has the opportunity to play at a wide, if he moves
towards it, then it may not be called because the striker has brought
himself within enough reach of the ball to play a shot.

max.it

On Aug 11, 6:55 pm, (max.it) wrote:

>
> Not so obvious.
> I have a clip in my head of a batsman stumbling around (doing laps)
> his wicket, and then sitting on it.

perhaps it was too exagerated then!

> At what point would you as umpire intervene in the stumbling?
> Would you wait no matter how long for the batsman to regain balance.

yes, until he has regained his balance, his actions are part of
playing the shot, normally this only takes a second or so, but as the
laws are written it is the actions that matter, not the duration.

> >> There would be no problem with the dismissal if
> >> the wicket was broken in the action of playing at the ball.
>
> >Yes, exactly, recovering your balance if lost is part of playing the
> >ball.
>
> >> Our
> >> batsman didn't break the wicket in the action of playing the ball. He
> >> broke the wicket after the action was complete.
>
> >not if he lost his balance in playing the shot.  If he had played the
> >shot, and then later stumbled and broke the wicket, that would be a
> >different matter (same situation as the Steve Waugh incident)
>
> >> Botham would have been dismissed under the 1980 code of laws.
>
> >Yes, he'd be out now as well as recovering his balance is part of
> >playing the ball
>
> >> I don't
> >> know which Inzi incident you mean.
>
> >Tried to sweep Panesar, missed, overbalanced, stumbled, tried to jump
> >over the wickets but didn't jump high enough.  Correctly given out by
> >the umpire.  It is on youtube.
>
> I remember now. That was fairly clear.

yes, he had completed his follow through before the stumble, so if
that decision is out then recovering balance must be part of playing
the delivery.

> >> >The time limit is your own invention.  The laws only discuss the
> >> >actions of the striker, not the amount of time over which the actions
> >> >take place.  As far as I can see, the only mention of timing in the
> >> >law is that setting of for the first run must be immediately after
> >> >playing the shot.
>
> >> The time limit is the invention of the ACU&S training panel.
>
> >The more of these teasers I read, the more I worry about the ACU&S
> >training panel.  They should not be reading into the laws things that
> >aren't there, especially if they are not in agreement with natural
> >sense of justice.  As a batsman if I lose balance while playing a
> >shot, that is my error, and if I put the wicket down as a result I
> >should be out.  At least that was my view when it happened to me! ;o)
>
> If the striker was stumbling around the wicket the umpire might call
> dead ball and make sure the batsman isn't sick or lost his marbles.

or Frank Spencer (I'm told that my hit wicket dismissal was quite
funny, I played a pull shot, tripped over my own feet and did at a 540
degree spin before clipping the bails as I fell over ;o)

> >> >To the more interesting point, would the striker have to knock the
> >> >stump out of the ground in order to be out in this scenario?
>
> >> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
> >> covers this". So I would say yes.
>
> >Good to see we are all in agreement with that.  TBH, it seems the only
> >part of the question that is at all complex.
>
> >Here is one for your umpire manager, look at the second item in the
> >Q&A for the hit wicket law on the MCC website, they say the "striker
> >has the opportunity to play at a wide" as "he can always move towards
> >it".  Surely the whole point of the wide law is to prevent the bowler
> >from delivering balls that do not give the striker an opportunity to
> >play a normal cricket shot?  I thought the A to this Q was rather
> >glib.
>
> Although the delivery can't be a wide until it has passes the wicket,
> it is deemed to be a wide from the moment the ball leaves the hand (if
> it is called).
> Every batsman has the opportunity to play at a wide, if he moves
> towards it, then it may not be called because the striker has brought
> himself within enough reach of the ball to play a shot.

Think of a Harmison wide that goes to second slip at speed.  You might
be able to move towards it, but you have  no opportunity to actually
play it.  It just seemed to me that some of the answers in the Q&A
show very little thought for the boundary cases.  I am a big believer
in the exception that proves the rule (in the sense that if the rule
gives the sensible result in unforseen circumstances it is a good
rule).

Personally, I can't see why many of the clauses in this particular law
are there.  I can't see a good reason why the batsman shouldn't be out
if he puts his wicket down at any time while the ball is live.

On 11 Aug, 16:03, (max.it) wrote:
>
> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
> covers this". So I would say yes.
>
> max.it

Sorry max...
I've eventually plucked up the courage to say it...much preferred your
postings in the halcyon days before you took up the coat and white
stick :)
Cheers
Robt P.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Robt P
 wrote:

>On 11 Aug, 16:03, (max.it) wrote:
>>
>> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
>> covers this". So I would say yes.
>>
>> max.it
>
>Sorry max...
>I've eventually plucked up the courage to say it...much preferred your
>postings in the halcyon days before you took up the coat and white
>stick :)
>Cheers
>Robt P.
>

My posts must be easier to follow these days Robert ;)

The problem is that there is an assumption by umpires that everyone is
an umpire or no one is an umpire. I am guilty of pushing a debate much
too far even when I am beaten.


max.it

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
 wrote:

>On Aug 11, 6:55 pm, (max.it) wrote:
>
>>
>> Not so obvious.
>> I have a clip in my head of a batsman stumbling around (doing laps)
>> his wicket, and then sitting on it.
>
>perhaps it was too exagerated then!
>
>> At what point would you as umpire intervene in the stumbling?
>> Would you wait no matter how long for the batsman to regain balance.
>
>yes, until he has regained his balance, his actions are part of
>playing the shot, normally this only takes a second or so, but as the
>laws are written it is the actions that matter, not the duration.

I understand. Like when the batsman topples and the keeper covers the
wicket for a stumping. In this case it is the keeper who decides if
the opportunity for the dismissal is lost.
In hit wicket the law tells us that the batsman should not be out if
he has completed ay action in receiving the delivery. In the original
post the batsman would be out hit wicket but for the fact that the
wicket is already broken causes a problem.

>
>> >> There would be no problem with the dismissal if
>> >> the wicket was broken in the action of playing at the ball.
>>
>> >Yes, exactly, recovering your balance if lost is part of playing the
>> >ball.


Apart from your original analogy we agree. However I still can't see a
keeper being so sharp, or a batsman wobbling about so long before
hitting his own wicket. I mean 5 seconds is too long, I could see me
probably after glancing a lot to the bowlers end, starting to walk in
from the strikers end and calling dead ball if my colleague hasn't
done so already.

>>
>> >> Our
>> >> batsman didn't break the wicket in the action of playing the ball. He
>> >> broke the wicket after the action was complete.
>>
>> >not if he lost his balance in playing the shot.  If he had played the
>> >shot, and then later stumbled and broke the wicket, that would be a
>> >different matter (same situation as the Steve Waugh incident)
>>
>> >> Botham would have been dismissed under the 1980 code of laws.
>>
>> >Yes, he'd be out now as well as recovering his balance is part of
>> >playing the ball
>>
>> >> I don't
>> >> know which Inzi incident you mean.
>>
>> >Tried to sweep Panesar, missed, overbalanced, stumbled, tried to jump
>> >over the wickets but didn't jump high enough.  Correctly given out by
>> >the umpire.  It is on youtube.
>>
>> I remember now. That was fairly clear.
>
>yes, he had completed his follow through before the stumble, so if
>that decision is out then recovering balance must be part of playing
>the delivery.
>
>> >> >The time limit is your own invention.  The laws only discuss the
>> >> >actions of the striker, not the amount of time over which the actions
>> >> >take place.  As far as I can see, the only mention of timing in the
>> >> >law is that setting of for the first run must be immediately after
>> >> >playing the shot.
>>
>> >> The time limit is the invention of the ACU&S training panel.
>>
>> >The more of these teasers I read, the more I worry about the ACU&S
>> >training panel.  They should not be reading into the laws things that
>> >aren't there, especially if they are not in agreement with natural
>> >sense of justice.  As a batsman if I lose balance while playing a
>> >shot, that is my error, and if I put the wicket down as a result I
>> >should be out.  At least that was my view when it happened to me! ;o)
>>
>> If the striker was stumbling around the wicket the umpire might call
>> dead ball and make sure the batsman isn't sick or lost his marbles.
>
>or Frank Spencer (I'm told that my hit wicket dismissal was quite
>funny, I played a pull shot, tripped over my own feet and did at a 540
>degree spin before clipping the bails as I fell over ;o)
>
>> >> >To the more interesting point, would the striker have to knock the
>> >> >stump out of the ground in order to be out in this scenario?
>>
>> >> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
>> >> covers this". So I would say yes.
>>
>> >Good to see we are all in agreement with that.  TBH, it seems the only
>> >part of the question that is at all complex.
>>
>> >Here is one for your umpire manager, look at the second item in the
>> >Q&A for the hit wicket law on the MCC website, they say the "striker
>> >has the opportunity to play at a wide" as "he can always move towards
>> >it".  Surely the whole point of the wide law is to prevent the bowler
>> >from delivering balls that do not give the striker an opportunity to
>> >play a normal cricket shot?  I thought the A to this Q was rather
>> >glib.
>>
>> Although the delivery can't be a wide until it has passes the wicket,
>> it is deemed to be a wide from the moment the ball leaves the hand (if
>> it is called).
>> Every batsman has the opportunity to play at a wide, if he moves
>> towards it, then it may not be called because the striker has brought
>> himself within enough reach of the ball to play a shot.
>
>Think of a Harmison wide that goes to second slip at speed.  You might
>be able to move towards it, but you have  no opportunity to actually
>play it.  It just seemed to me that some of the answers in the Q&A
>show very little thought for the boundary cases.  I am a big believer
>in the exception that proves the rule (in the sense that if the rule
>gives the sensible result in unforseen circumstances it is a good
>rule).

If the batsman brings himself close enough to the ball to play a
normal cricket shot then it should not be called wide. If Harmison
bowls a 2nd slipper at a rate, then if the batsman moves toward it and
brings himself close enough to play a shot then it would only be the
pace that beats him, not the direction.

The O&A are not overly easy to understand, and the OLM is a disaster
for reference. I reckon that this stuff was produced for the old
written exams, and there is a method behind it.

>
>Personally, I can't see why many of the clauses in this particular law
>are there.  I can't see a good reason why the batsman shouldn't be out
>if he puts his wicket down at any time while the ball is live.

It must have been a common enough dismissal (appeal)in the past to
have had so much attention.

It's one seen quite often in boys cricket. Last season two of our kids
were out hit wicket in successive balls. Only for one being the last
man the bowler would have been on a hat trick One lad hit a certain
four to win the match and stepped on his wicket. The ball was almost
at the boundary and the batsmen didn't run. I reckon the kid  had
turned around to speak to the keeper and walked into his wicket. The
keeper wasn't slow and made the appeal, the umpire had his finger in
the air like a shot.

max.it

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Robt P
 wrote:

>On 11 Aug, 16:03, (max.it) wrote:
>>
>> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
>> covers this". So I would say yes.
>>
>> max.it
>
>Sorry max...
>I've eventually plucked up the courage to say it...much preferred your
>postings in the halcyon days before you took up the coat and white
>stick :)
>Cheers
>Robt P.
>

Before the white coat I would have had a straight answer to a
question. After the white coat I get this response.

"Hit wicket ?
The answer lies in the Laws.  35.1(a) describes how and when it is
done and 28.2describes how the wicket is put down when it has been
previously broken.  Not out."

What would you have done?
Gavin has confused me enough to give him not out. Gavin is still
giving him out. I was giving the batsman out to begin with too.

max.it

On 14 Aug, 00:09, (max.it) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Robt P
>
>  wrote:
> >On 11 Aug, 16:03, (max.it) wrote:
>
> >> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
> >> covers this". So I would say yes.
>
> >> max.it
>
> >Sorry max...
> >I've eventually plucked up the courage to say it...much preferred your
> >postings in the halcyon days before you took up the coat and white
> >stick :)
> >Cheers
> >Robt P.
>
> Before the white coat I would have had a straight answer to a
> question. After the white coat I get this response.
>
> "Hit wicket ?
> The answer lies in the Laws.  35.1(a) describes how and when it is
> done and 28.2describes how the wicket is put down when it has been
> previously broken.  Not out."
>
> What would you have done?
> Gavin has confused me enough to give him not out. Gavin is still
> giving him out. I was giving the batsman out to begin with too.

I'm only giving him out if he knocks a stump out of the ground (i.e.
he puts down the wicket), not out if he doesn't.

It seems in accordance with a sense of justice as far as I can see
(which is my usual guide in interpreting the laws).  The wicket keeper
has made a mistake by putting the stumps down before the striker hits
the wicket.  Making the 'hit wicket' more difficult to obtain is his
penalty for that mistake.  It is no different from a keeper that sees
the striker dash down the pitch and miss, if he fumbles the ball and
takes the bails of when he doesn't have the ball in his gloves, he can
still effect a stumping, but it becomes more difficult as he now has
to remove a stump from the ground or re-make the wicket.

I do hope the "correct" answer according to the ACU&S is not an
inconditional "out"!

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Robt P
 wrote:

>On 11 Aug, 16:03, (max.it) wrote:
>>
>> I asked an icc umpire manager about that. He said "not out, law 28
>> covers this". So I would say yes.
>>
>> max.it
>
>Sorry max...
>I've eventually plucked up the courage to say it...much preferred your
>postings in the halcyon days before you took up the coat and white
>stick :)
>Cheers
>Robt P.
>

Do you remember my namesake being given out hit wicket? 
Bedser clipped him on the hand and he flung off the glove and
dislodged the bails. 1953 (before my time)

max.it