« Performance of the Day - Alex Gidman | Main | ECB disciplinary panel busy again »
Why I don't like.... overthrows after hitting the stumps
What's better than a tight game of cricket? Okay, quite a few things, some even printable, but the Bopara and Broad game (the 4th England vs India ODI) showed that even a moribund format like 50 over cricket can rouse the most sated observers to something close to ecstasy.
In tight games of cricket, every run counts in determining the thinnest of margins of superiority, so it's crucial to get the boundary calls right - hence the television replays.
The Trumpet has written before of his disdain for leg-byes as legitimate runs and now makes the case against overthrows after hitting the stumps. What is the objective of a fielder with ball in hand? To hit the stumps. But if the batsman is in by any margin (including that of the benefit of the doubt), that achieved objective becomes a liability for the fielding team. No fielder can back up as the ricochet is unpredictable, so no plans can be made. The better the fielder, the more chance of giving away runs.
Invariably after such runs are added, the batters are giggling, while the fielding captain sucks his teeth and commentators rail at the injustice. Why not call dead ball once the stumps are broken and let the batters have the runs they've earned, but no more, and not penalise the fielder who does his job in hitting the stumps?
[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]
September 4, 2007 in English cricket, ICC, rules, bodies etc, Stats and facts, Why I don't like... | Permalink | 
Stumble It!
Comments
Toots - There is no injustice in overthrows. You seem hell-bent in taking all the fun and mystery out of the game.
If a fielder hits the stumps and the batsman is in his crease put simply the fieldsman has made an error in judgement and if it goes for four that seems fair.
I revel, as did Arjuna Ranatunga in teasing fielders to have a shy. It's amazing how keen they are to run you out after a well timed sledge or some canny running between wickets.
It's part of the game and an important one. The ball cannot be dead if a stroke is attempted and the players and the ball are in motion.
It pays to remember that the fielder although expressing skill (or luck) is in error not the batter. It's up to the fielding team to possess the ball to make it dead. If they haven't got it under control then runs are on offer. That is the basic fundamental of the game.
Posted by: nesta | 4 Sep 2007 09:31:46
Nesta - All good points as ever (especially in the last para), but I'm going to stand by what I wrote. If a fielder throws and misses, then fine - ball in play and run 'em up if there's no backing up. It's when the fielder hits the stumps and the ball cannons away to where an area vacated by a another fielder in order to back up the throw. That seems too big a price to pay for misjudging a batsmen's speed by (in TV games) a centimetre or two. Surely the fun of goading would still go on after any rule change?
And it wouldn't be completely unprecedented, as the ball is not under control but no runs are possible after the ball hits the batsman offering no stroke and not taking evasive action.
I need not remind you that I was a bowler...
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 4 Sep 2007 12:30:04
I guess this is a question not a comment but I can't find it in the Laws, and I apologise if I am being really stupid: what happens if the batsman takes a tight run on an overthrow and the fielder attempts a run-out by throwing the ball at the already-broken stumps? Wouldn't it make it harder to judge whether the bails are dislodged if the wicket is already down?
Posted by: miriam | 4 Sep 2007 13:50:15
A stump must be held aloft with ball in hand. Andy Bichel did so (unsuccessfully) in a televised game recently.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 4 Sep 2007 13:52:47
Ooh - thanks.
Posted by: miriam | 4 Sep 2007 14:19:57
Toots - Injustice!!
I wrote The ball cannot be dead if a stroke is attempted and the players and the ball are in motion,
I was careful with my words.
No need to apologise it is not required. But a disclaimer might help at the end of the article.
Something like, 'The Tooting Trumpet is a straight-spinning run-ravaging bowler who spent many an afternoon at fine-leg inventing clever methods to confound batsmen."
But seriously mate, it makes fielding and the game more fun, exciting, unpredictable and skillful.
Just like being a good judge of a run is essential in not being run out likewise the fielder has to be a good judge of when to throw.
I know bowlers hate it almost as much as a dropped catch or a snick through slips but that's cricket.
To take it out of the game would lessen it. Without the element of penalty for the fielder a direct run out becomes target practice.
If the team is coached to back up correctly there are methods for reducing overthrows from direct hits. Also if you hit the base of the stump square it doesn't go far. Best of all if you judge correctly and get the batsman out there is no penalty but a reward.
Very controversial topic Toots. That rule you want to change is I suspect a very old one. It has stood the test of several generations and teaches patience, builds confidence in decision making and reinforces that there are real consequences for your actions.
DISCLAIMER
Nesta is an opening bat that spends many an afternoon standing at slip chatting with his mates waiting for the bowlers to hurry up so he can have a bat.
Posted by: nesta | 4 Sep 2007 15:31:49
Nesta - I used to stand at slip chatting to my mates about ways to get my bowling figures to look better. And if you had bowling figures like mine...
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 4 Sep 2007 15:37:38
I have an off-topic question on run outs. Suppose this:
The striker smashes the ball straight back towards the bowler, the bowler gets a touch, the ball hits non-striker's stumps out of the ground but non-striker had his bat grounded. Now, the non-striker sets off for a run but unbeknown to him the splayed stumps and the ball are hurtling towards a fieldsman at mid-on. Mid-on catches all 3 stumps and ball at exactly the same time and hence they are essentially all "rapped together" (normal procedure if stumps out of the ground). Is the non-striker out, or not out? If not, how would he then be run out? Stumps put back into holes, then taken back out and rapped together?
Posted by: The Sultan | 4 Sep 2007 16:58:15
Sultan - My reading is that just one stump out of the ground held with ball are grounds for appeal and, in the situation you describe, a positive answer.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 4 Sep 2007 17:02:48
Sultan - what you are suggesting would require an expert slipper at mid-on and I'd love to see it happen.
I do apologise for being a smart-arse Toots and I mean no disrespect but when on tour the skipper has the Laws in his kit.
If all three stumps were miraculously at mid-on with ball, the fielder would have to replace a stump from whence it came and then pull/knock it out to with ball to claim the wicket.
So says the Lords of the MCC in Law 28.3 Remaking the wicket.
I quote, If the wicket is broken or put down while the ball is in play, the umpire shall not remake the wicket until the ball is dead. Any fielder, however, may
1. replace a bail or bails on top of the stumps
2. put one or more stumps into the ground where the wicket originally stood.
Miriam - Your question is answered in Law 28.4. It says That the stumps are put down when there are no bails by knocking or pulling it out of the ground with the hand holding the ball or with the arm holding the ball.
You don't have to hold it up in the air, that must be a popular theatrical tradition around the cricket grounds of Tooting.
The ball and stump usually are held aloft as part of the appeal and in the excitement at the breaking of the wicket twice in one ball. And just quietlly it usually happens when there are overthrows involved.
Posted by: nesta | 4 Sep 2007 18:14:25
Nesta - you're making me laugh out loud here by quoting the Laws of Cricket! Surely that's a new first even for our grand old game!!!
Super stuff, but I shall continue to brandish the stump aloft like those apes with their bones in 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 4 Sep 2007 18:23:18
I would like to see this happen: It's the last ball of the match and 2 runs are needed. Batsman hits and runs. It's only enough for a single. But fielder throws, breaks the stumps, overthrows, batsman continues for a second run, second fielder picks up the ball and goes to take a stump out of the ground thus purporting to win his team the match. Fielder No 2 keeps the stump in his hand as a souvenir and runs round the field in celebration. However! the umpires take a second look at the run-out and realises that at the EXACT nanosecond that the stump was removed from the ground, the ball had just slipped out of the fielder's hand.
Posted by: Miriam | 4 Sep 2007 18:53:36
The aloft stump is most appropriate in the circumstances and The Laws are far more interesting and fascinating than Rajistan late night TV. I was grateful for the distraction from the sari drenched soap opera.
Posted by: nesta | 4 Sep 2007 18:57:33
Miriam - what a wonderful imagination for controversy. I was on the edge of my seat.
Posted by: nesta | 4 Sep 2007 19:02:06
There's more, Nesta. The batsman is given not out, and now it's his turn to wrestle the stump from the fielder and run round the ground in celebration. However, the umpires are still conferring. What can this be? Oh no! The umpires have decided that the first run from that last delivery was deliberately short! So, no runs are given!
BUT, in all the excitement, everyone had momentarily forgotten that the umpire had called the last delivery as a no-ball, as they were all preoccupied with whether either of the attempted run-outs had worked. This is a competition where the no-ball counts as 1. The teams are therefore level, with one ball to play.
BUT! this is actually the second short-running transgression by the batting team, so - 5 RUN PENALTY! Does our batsman hit a six on the last ball? You decide.
Posted by: Miriam | 4 Sep 2007 20:07:23
And I thought my Space Odyssey reference was pushing the envelope!
Anyway it would never happen. Umpires know the rules, like what to do if it gets a bit dark in the World Cup Final. Er... hang on.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 4 Sep 2007 22:03:34
Thanks all - some insightful and wonderful ideas there!
Posted by: The Sultan | 5 Sep 2007 08:55:15
The comments to this entry are closed.
