I wouldn’t say ‘incredibly bad’ fielding would be necessary, just a few dozy actions happening to coincide. I’m pretty sure the following scenario would be possible: Three runs off a the initial shot, with a fielder badly overthrowing the return to the wicket keeper that it rolls on for four, with nobody in place to intercept it.
Checking this out, you are correct.
Ignorance is being fought here because I would have bet money on the cricketing term. Also I learn from Brewer that a stump speaker, or a politician going ‘on the stump’, comes from the same source i.e. a tree stump originally used as a platform for a speech.
To my further amazement ‘to stump up’, or to pay what is due, has a similar origin. Ready money is called ‘stumps’ or ‘stumpy’ and means money paid down on the spot i.e. on the stump of a tree. I’d be grateful for confirmation of the origins of this particular phrase since Brewer, although fascinating in its way, can sometimes be wide of the mark.
Can I help it if the MCC is old-fashioned and hasn’t caught up with gender-free language? They probably haven’t even heard of women’s cricket.
To be fair, it doesn’t take long on t’internet to find out that the first women’s test match played at Lord’s was in 1970. And the MCC is, ultimately, the rule-maker of the sport. (I’m not denying that there’s a gender bias in the game, though!!)
No chance of being hit in the googlies then
And indeed that happened in the 2006-07 Ashes series, according to Wikipedia.
Or that the first report of a women’s match appeared in the Reading Mercury of 26 July 1745.
Sure, but you *could *bowl a maiden over.
Da da da da da da da da, Da da da da da da da da, Batsman!
Da da da da da da da da, Batsman!
Da da da da da da da da, Batsman, Batsman!
Batsman, Batsman, Batsman!
Da da da da da da da da, Da da da da da da da da, BATSMAN!
There was another instance of a seven being scored in similar circumstances back in 1976 between England and West Indies, and I remember seeing it. The umpires had to improvise a bit to signal the score to the scorers - ISTR that they signalled “four - four - one short”. No-one was wired for sound in those days.
The initial shot was worth one quick run, there was an optimistic throw to try for a run-out which resulted only in a ricochet into the deep field, two more had almost been completed by the time the ball was retrieved and a horribly misdirected throw beat everyone and crossed the boundary for another four. (If the ball crosses the boundary of its own accord while the batsmen are running, whatever they’re running or have run is ignored and only four runs scored - unless more have already been run - but if the deliberate act of a fielder sends the ball over the boundary, all completed runs count and four more besides.)
I always remember, for no good reason, that the first-class record (probably from the days before boundaries) is ten, that the batsman was named Samuel Hill Hill-Wood and the bowler Cuthbert James Burnup. But somewhere in the annals of the game is an account of a ball becoming stuck up a tree, the umpires (incorrectly) disallowing the call of “Lost Ball” as the ball was in plain sight, and some three-figure number of runs being taken before the offending article could be recovered.
That is not correct. All overthrows score regardless of whether the fieldsman deliberately threw the ball over the boundary. Fives are quite routine in attempted run outs.
I umpired a game (I have a ticket) where the fielding side gave away 4 overthrows throwing the ball to the bowler as he went back to his mark. The ball had been fielded, the batsmen ran one but the fieldsman never threw the ball to the keeper to make it dead. He then threw it over the bowler head down to the long on fence.
From Law 19
Overthrows can happen. If the ball reaches the boundary from an overthrow, the boundary allowance is scored plus any runs completed together with the run in progress, providing the batsmen have crossed on that run at the instant of the throw.
Sorry I see what you are saying now - of it’s own accord - without anyone fielding it and throwing. And of course you are right, in fact they get all the runs they ran including any not yet completed so long as they cross.
Dunno… we speak of a batsman having a “decent knock”, although “knock” tends to refer to the overall batting performance, rather than an individual shot.
Exactly. “deliberate act of the fielder” didn’t mean that the fielder deliberately threw it over the boundary - only that he deliberately threw it, full stop.
Talking of fives in attempted run-outs, one of those was Larwood’s first scoring stroke in the final Test of the “Bodyline” tour. If I remember the story correctly, he was ticked off at being sent in as night watchman after a hard day’s bowling and hit a risky single early on to Bradman of all people, who overthrew and gifted Larwood a five. The next morning, Larwood had a good old hit and was on course for a hundred when he was brilliantly caught by “Dainty” Ironmonger who normally couldn’t have caught the pox in a knocking-shop. The crowd gave Larwood a generous hand - doubly generous under the circumstances.
In Western Australia in 1894 there was what must surely be the best example of this ever. A delivery was hit by the batsman into the top branches of a tree which was within the boundary and got stuck. The umpire ruled that the batsmen could keep running as the ball was still visible. Two fielders tried to climb the tree but the lower branches collapsed under their weight. They then decided to cut the tree down, but after a long fruitless search for an axe they had to abandon that idea. One of them did, however, find a rifle, and they then tried to shoot the ball down, only abandoning the effort after the batting side had completed 286 runs and declared.
A mere seven runs off one delivery? Hah!
Purely out of curiosity, do you have a cite for the tree incident in that game? A book will do nicely.
I’m guessing the game wasn’t first class. The only other grounds I know of with trees within the boundary are Pietermaritzburg (South Africa) and Amstelveen (Amsterdam) although the latter may not stage first class cricket.
Famously, the St Lawrence Ground at Canterbury used to have a lime tree inside the field of play, until adverse weather conditions finished it off. If a batsman hit any part of this tree he scored 4 runs, irrespective of whether the ball would have cleared the boundary for 6 or, more importantly, whether or not the ball stayed in the tree.
Clearly the local rules in Western Australia (in 1894 anyway) can be viewed as idiosyncratic to say the least. 
I think they’ve planted a new tree at Canterbury.
oooooh that’s underarm.
Speaking of which, is underarm bowling allowed?
I’m not a cricket fan y’see
Yes. There was an game on 1st February 1981 between Australia and New Zealand, in which, famously, the last ball was bowled underarm so that NZ could not tie the game (it was 6 runs behind, so a boundary hit on the full would have tied the game). Bowling underarm made it easier to score, but harder to hit a boundary. The NZers were furious, of course – the then Prime Minister of New Zealand described it as “The most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket.”
But underarm bowling is extremely rare.