International cricket rolling thread

The Game Room
1963

This is correct, under Law 31
31.1 Umpire not to give batter out without an appeal
Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder.

But the dual dismissal scenario is not legal, irrespective of the spirit of the game:

Under Law 31
31.4 Appeal “How’s That?”
An appeal “How’s That?” covers all ways of being out.

and also under Law 20 20.1 Ball is dead
20.1.1.3 (The ball becomes dead when) a batter is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.

It is not unusual for the striker to be potentially out in multiple way off the one delivery. The one striker could near simultaneously LBW, Bowled, Caught and Stumped off the one ball.
The fielders would appeal, though them laughing to the point of being collectively catatonic is possible. Both umpires would indicate that the striker is out. In the scorebook, under the dismissal order of precedence, the batter is recorded as being out bowled. If the ball did not dislodge a bail, they would be out caught. If the catch was not effected, they would be out LBW. If LBW did not apply they would be out stumped. And yes, the order of precedence does violate the letter of Law 20.1.1.3 :man_shrugging:

There are (rare) instances in a single delivery when either batsman could be dismissed. Most are variations with the non-striker being run out. (To stretch even further the scenario above, after stumping the striker, the keeper then throws down the stumps at the bowlers end with the non-striker out of their ground). The other is “Obstructing the Field”. There was also the potential for the non-striker to be dismissed “Handled the Ball”. These were originally separate laws but since 2017 both modes of dismissal has been folded into the one Law 37 “Obstructing the Field”

Andrew Hilditch (1979, Australia v Pakistan) was the only time in international cricket that the non-striking batsman has been given out for handling the ball.

In a scenario when the striker is struck on the pads, the ball rebounds to a fielder at short leg who throws down the stumps at the bowlers end with the non-striker out of their ground. The appeal is made after the run out effected. The umpire will first consider the LBW, and if they determine so give the striker out and the ball is dead. If they consider the striker to be not out then the ball is still live and non-striker is run out. If the technology is in use, the striker given out but on review it is determined say the delivery pitched outside leg stump and so the decision is overturned then we are in a bit of a mess. I don’t know whether the DRS “resurrects” the dead ball and the rest of the play ie the non-striker is run out stands. I think it should, but I don’t know.

However, in no circumstances are both batters out. Nor can the fielding team determine which one is out. That is the sole prerogative of the umpires under the Laws of the Game.

As a smart alec aside, if that impression is not already ubiquitous :upside_down_face:, two batsman can be dismissed when only one delivery has been bowled.
The first is dismissed for any valid reason. The second is tardy making their way to the pitch and is dismissed under Law 40 “Timed Out”.

1964

So my record of fighting ignorance with ignorance is unblemished!

1965

Thanks! I’m laughing imagining your example of the batter that was out 5 different ways. After all that, besides just because the rule says so, what is the purpose of the appeal? Why not just let the umpire call the out when he or she sees it? It would save a lot of screaming, which to me, sometimes borders on umpire intimidation (when it’s done excessively and/or with extreme vigor).

1966

It stops the umpire just firing out a batter because they’d not brought the cucumber sandwiches or some other social faux pas.

The appeal indicates at least one member of the fielding side thought there was a breach of the Laws of the Game of Cricket

1967

Back to the match at hand, Stokes has adopted a very aggressive approach, going from “don’t lose” into “just win baby” mode when England were still 200 behind!

Looks like it’s coming off, but if England had “collapsed” for 450, strong words would have ensued.

1968

Yeah, I wasn’t convinced it was the time for teeing off (he added 1/11th of the opposition score before going out) but the faith he showed in Root - and Foakes! - by doing so has paid off, so…

Some astonishing batting by Root this morning, and a classic demonstration of the existential angst of batting - despite making a brilliant 176, he’s furious with himself for getting out.

1969

And Stokes doubles down, sending Broad ahead of Potts and Leach. Stuart will be looking to biff a few quick runs I imagine.

1970

Not to be - England’s tail goes quickly, after Foakes is run out trying to get Potts down the other end.

NZ lead by 14. They have 5 sessions plus c.30 mins to extend their lead and bowl England out. Unless this pitch is going to deteriorate a lot they’ll be luck to do that in 3 sessions so I don’t really see how they can set a defendable target in 2 sessions. But if they take 3 sessions to add say 280 then how on earth can they take 10 wickets in the time remaining?

Similarly, England need to get NZ out in time to chase down a total, but how exactly? As I write, Vaughan on TMS is suggesting that there might be something for the spinners but it won’t be a lot. Small variations will have to count for a lot.

All of which is a long way of saying that (early wicket notwithstanding) this is looking like a draw.

1971

Yes, something improbable would need to happen for England to win, and something extraordinary for New Zealand to win.

Ladbrokes right now (with NZ 38-1):

Eng 7-2
The Draw 2-5
NZ 6-1

1972

Well, three quick wickets take NZ from 104-1 to 131-4, so something might be happening.

1973

New Zealand’s best chance at winning is to be bowled out, because I don’t think they can declare with enough runs to be safe… but being bowled out 250 ahead early tomorrow morning gives England a good chance, but NZ a good chance too.

1974

Most importantly - This also allows the fielding side to withdraw their appeal and allow the batsman to continue - even if the umpire has agreed with earlier appeal and given the batter out.[quote=“penultima_thule, post:1966, topic:828205, full:true”]

It stops the umpire just firing out a batter because they’d not brought the cucumber sandwiches or some other social faux pas.

The appeal indicates at least one member of the fielding side thought there was a breach of the Laws of the Game of Cricket
[/quote]

1975

All of this can be remedied without the need for exaggerated appeals thrown at the dart board, without limitation. I think the batting side should get a run for every failed appeal.

1976

Consider it as cricket’s 2nd amendment.
“The right to appeal shall not be infringed”.

You have a point and I’d be quite happy for every DRS review that the captain stakes half their teams match fee, and if the review was upheld, the winnings handed to the umpire in cash at the end of play.

Bit more problematic at all the non-professional grades of cricket.

1977

Lol. The only other 2nd amendment I know comes with major qualifiers. But who am I to get in the way of tradition?

1978

OK, come on you Pommy bastards you are chasing 299 @ 4/over for the series win vs the ruling Test Champions.

I have my dosh on the Kiwis.
What says youse?

1979

It’s the hope that gets you.

1980

Things are getting might interesting.

1981

You know what, I’m going for it, Root’s gone, Lees has fallen, we’re two wickets from our weak tail, 206 to go from c.45 overs… we’re going to do it.

1982

Johnny Bairstow thinks we can do it