Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: six and out on November 10, 2020, 06:54:26 AM
-
So Tim Paine just did this in the Sheffield Shield and the commentators lorded it, but I have always considered it a bit village whenever you see it tried in club cricket.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CHZV8zOHE1H/?igshid=173vk9hjn2iko (https://www.instagram.com/p/CHZV8zOHE1H/?igshid=173vk9hjn2iko)
-
Its a wicket out of nothing, fantastic work
Its village if you throw it back past the bowler, who has already turned round, for overthrows. Just make sure you hit the stumps!
-
Didn't give him a warning first? Disgraceful.
-
If the batsman is batting outside his crease i think its fair game. Paine noticed he was always pushing forward. Very smart play by him
-
Village. Not sure if the spirit of the game extends to Oz? He wasn't attempting a run and no way that's a stumping. It might be out / given out - if the square leg deems it so - but if so, I don't like it. The fielding captain could withdraw the appeal... he won't I'm sure. I'm old school and but one voice...
-
The bit I don't get is commentators acting like they've never seen it before at the professional level. Keepers try to sneakily underarm the stumps down all the time at every level from low club level up to internationals, the difference is normally they miss or if they do hit, the guy was well in anyway.
Its neither village nor genius, just a good shot.
-
It's village when someones stood a few yards back to someone they should be stood up to. If stood back to a genuine quick and someone is out of their ground, then it's fair game I reckon. Wouldn't be calling it genius tho, more sloppy from the batsman.
-
Village. Not sure if the spirit of the game extends to Oz? He wasn't attempting a run and no way that's a stumping. It might be out / given out - if the square leg deems it so - but if so, I don't like it. The fielding captain could withdraw the appeal... he won't I'm sure. I'm old school and but one voice...
If it isn't a stumping, what is it? I fail to see how a legitimate dismissal is against the spirit of the game.
I've seen it more than once in club games and it's always just been dopey by the batsman, nobody batted an eyelid or moaned about it being unfair. In one instance the kid's dad gave him a bollocking for throwing it away!
-
Just good cricket and awareness from Paine. Absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of the game, blokes out of his crease, just like if keeper was up to the stumps and he left his ground, regardless of whether he is looking to run or not. Dont leave your crease
Its village when you see the WK in club cricket, stood 20 yards back to a trundler and continue to throw it at the stumps most balls, overarm regardless of where the batsmen is stood
-
It’s been happening for years at all levels. Don’t see the issue with it
-
Village. Not sure if the spirit of the game extends to Oz? He wasn't attempting a run and no way that's a stumping. It might be out / given out - if the square leg deems it so - but if so, I don't like it. The fielding captain could withdraw the appeal... he won't I'm sure. I'm old school and but one voice...
How is it any different to stumping a batsman who'd tried to run down the pitch to a spinner? Batsman tried to gain an advantage, wicketkeeper noticed and stumped him. Good cricket.
-
For those you wondering it went down as a stumping in the scorebook and also if it makes a difference Nick Larkin was on 161 at the time
-
Don't think it particularly matters what score he was on. Every cricketer knows that if you're not in your crease then you're at risk of getting out.
-
For anyone complaining about this, would you complain if the keeper had been stood up to the stumps?
It's the batsman's fault if he's unaware he's out his crease, not the keepers - I'd be more pissed if Paine hadn't thrown his stumps down!
-
Good awareness from Paine and lapse from batsman
-
Just good cricket and awareness from Paine. Absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of the game, blokes out of his crease, just like if keeper was up to the stumps and he left his ground, regardless of whether he is looking to run or not. Dont leave your crease
Its village when you see the WK in club cricket, stood 20 yards back to a trundler and continue to throw it at the stumps most balls, overarm regardless of where the batsmen is stood
Oh yeah, that really is village - especially if he hits them and appeals loudly despite you standing there with both feet in the crease.
Everyone rolls their eyes as the square leg umpire has to come and reset the bails AGAIN.
-
For anyone complaining about this, would you complain if the keeper had been stood up to the stumps?
It's the batsman's fault if he's unaware he's out his crease, not the keepers - I'd be more pissed if Paine hadn't thrown his stumps down!
I think it’s fine, but struggle to see how people who think mankading is some sort of hanging offence can then say that they think this is not similar.
-
If it isn't a stumping, what is it? I fail to see how a legitimate dismissal is against the spirit of the game.
I've seen it more than once in club games and it's always just been dopey by the batsman, nobody batted an eyelid or moaned about it being unfair. In one instance the kid's dad gave him a bollocking for throwing it away!
Easy tiger - yes we've all seen it. Just expressing my opinion. It could be interpreted as a run out, depending on the interpretation of the situation by the standing umpires.
-
If it isn't a stumping, what is it? I fail to see how a legitimate dismissal is against the spirit of the game.
Going on the description alone, it's a run-out not a stumping.
-
I think it’s fine, but struggle to see how people who think mankading is some sort of hanging offence can then say that they think this is not similar.
The ball is in play, the batsman has to be aware of where he's standing and where the ball is.
With a mankad (although I don't agree) you could say that there's some element of deception. I can't see how that applies to throwing down the stumps of someone who has walked out of their crease while trying to play a shot.
-
How long is it ok for the keeper to wait before throwing at the stumps like that?
For the record I don’t have an issue with either, just don’t leave your ground at the wrong time 😬
-
Fine by me.
Bowlers have to keep their foot behind the line and so should batsman, including the non striker.
-
The ball is in play, the batsman has to be aware of where he's standing and where the ball is.
So exactly the same as a mankad then?
I think there's an argument the ball is dead here, but that would be very generous to the batsman.
-
So exactly the same as a mankad then?
I think there's an argument the ball is dead here, but that would be very generous to the batsman.
20.1 Ball is dead
20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
20.1.1.2 a boundary is scored. See Law 19.7 (Runs scored from boundaries).
20.1.1.3 a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.
20.1.1.4 whether played or not it becomes trapped between the bat and person of a batsman or between items of his/her clothing or equipment.
20.1.1.5 whether played or not it lodges in the clothing or equipment of a batsman or the clothing of an fielder.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
The dead ball rule kind of contradicts itself in that the 1st bit says about just in the keepers gloves but afterwards it says about if the fielders and batsman regards it in play
-
So exactly the same as a mankad then?
I think there's an argument the ball is dead here, but that would be very generous to the batsman.
In some ways, yes, but I don't think there's the same element of 'deception' for lack of a better word as there is with a Mankad.
That said, I don't see Mankads as unfair so I'm not likely to see this as unfair either. Why should a batsman be able to gain an advantage over the bowler without risking his wicket?
-
20.1 Ball is dead
20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
20.1.1.2 a boundary is scored. See Law 19.7 (Runs scored from boundaries).
20.1.1.3 a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.
20.1.1.4 whether played or not it becomes trapped between the bat and person of a batsman or between items of his/her clothing or equipment.
20.1.1.5 whether played or not it lodges in the clothing or equipment of a batsman or the clothing of an fielder.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
The dead ball rule kind of contradicts itself in that the 1st bit says about just in the keepers gloves but afterwards it says about if the fielders and batsman regards it in play
The dead ball rule must be one of the funkiest in sport. It works really efficiently 99% of the time, but is absolutely useless when there is a controversy.
-
When I do this I get rinsed by some players in my team haha. but tbh i normally miss the stumps
-
In some ways, yes, but I don't think there's the same element of 'deception' for lack of a better word as there is with a Mankad.
I've never understood the idea that there's deception in mankads - in what way is the batsman being deceived? Either they're trying to steal an advantage and get caught or they're not looking and have wandered out of their crease.
The dead ball law really isn't helpful for this situation, I think it's fair that it's out though. Would certainly ask the question of the umpires if I was batting!
-
If someone is consistently walking down or starting out their crease but not retreating back after playing and missing, then i'll definitely have a shy, even if it is just a bit of a warning that makes them bat deeper for a bit and makes it easier for my bowler, it is worthwhile doing.
I have only hit with the batsman out of his ground on a handful of occasions.
-
I've never understood the idea that there's deception in mankads - in what way is the batsman being deceived? Either they're trying to steal an advantage and get caught or they're not looking and have wandered out of their crease.
The dead ball law really isn't helpful for this situation, I think it's fair that it's out though. Would certainly ask the question of the umpires if I was batting!
I think the deception element (again not that I agree with this but I can see where people are coming from) depends on how far through their action the bowler gets and whether they intended to bowl at all. Seen it a couple of times in club games that the bowler was clearly just waiting for the batsman to step out of their crease early. In fairness to those involved, they did just warn the batsman so no harm done.
-
When batting out of my crease if the ball goes through I'll always look to get back. Always. Even to a pace bowler. To the point its habit. That dismissal is nothing but assumption from the bat that he's fine standing out of his ground.
It's great cricket from Paine. Sloppy from the batsman. If Paine was standing up, he'd get back, if he wasn't batting in his crease already.
How is it different to the Mankad? Maybe because its happening while play is 'live.' If he'd hit to a close fielder, he'd be in his crease, why is the keeper any different?
-
It is hardly genius when every club keep in league cricket tries this multiplie times every week but well executed.
Under the laws of the game it would seem to technically be a dead ball since no run was attempted but in practice these will be given every time
-
For anyone who thinks that should be dead ball - what about when the batsmen run a bye through to the keeper, when trying to get someone back on strike for example? Works both ways
-
Going on the description alone, it's a run-out not a stumping.
I'll correct myseĺf and say it is a stumping and not a run-out. Whether it is a legitimate one is another matter.
I had something like this happen when I was doing square-leg umpire once. There was an appeal for caught-behind or or maybe be lbw. I turned my head to see the umpire judge the batsman not out and, subconsciously or not, assumed the ball to be dead. Meanwhile the wicketkeeper had thrown down the stumps and was running towards me screaming like a mad thing. I told him, honestly, that I could not give the batsman out because I had not seen what had happened. He called me a cheat and it all kicked off. I wouldn't have minded if he'd called me a fool...
-
How is it different to the Mankad? Maybe because its happening while play is 'live.' If he'd hit to a close fielder, he'd be in his crease, why is the keeper any different?
Play is live when the bowler starts his run-up.
I think the deception element (again not that I agree with this but I can see where people are coming from) depends on how far through their action the bowler gets and whether they intended to bowl at all. Seen it a couple of times in club games that the bowler was clearly just waiting for the batsman to step out of their crease early. In fairness to those involved, they did just warn the batsman so no harm done.
You can't fake to bowl and then throw the stumps over, that would be not out. A batsman who waits til the ball has been released before leaving their crease can never be mankaded, there's no deception element.
-
Not uncommon to see this in league cricket on a Saturday, as has been said most of the time the stumps are missed :)
Ball is live and perfectly legit dismissal, in fact I may of been out this way myself once!
I believe it's actually 'stumped' in the book by could be wrong, there is no run being taken but batter is out of his crease so I can see run out being correct too
-
For anyone who thinks that should be dead ball - what about when the batsmen run a bye through to the keeper, when trying to get someone back on strike for example? Works both ways
Clearly in this case the batsmen are attempting a run so the ball isn't dead
-
Also you got to ask yourself if your foot was back, but the keeper hit the stumps and the ball deflected off into a gap would you take a run?
-
Clearly in this case the batsmen are attempting a run so the ball isn't dead
But according to 20.1.1.1 its dead when the keeper receives it.
I think if the bye run to the keeper is universally accepted then this dismissal should be aswell. Dont like giving praise to Australians especially Simple Tim but fantastic keeping in this case.
Slightly unrelated but still Sheffield Shield - NSW declared with Mitchell Starc on 86*. Lost his head on the walk off the field and Rumours of a broken wall in the dressing room :D
-
But according to 20.1.1.1 its dead when the keeper receives it.
I think if the bye run to the keeper is universally accepted then this dismissal should be aswell. Dont like giving praise to Australians especially Simple Tim but fantastic keeping in this case.
Slightly unrelated but still Sheffield Shield - NSW declared with Mitchell Starc on 86*. Lost his head on the walk off the field and Rumours of a broken wall in the dressing room :D
I know it is a technical point, but it is a dead ball when the umpire considers it "finally settled" with the keeper.
It isn't a law that causes too much issue in practice and WG Grace running out Sammy Jones in 1882 probably gave us the Ashes so worth it on balance!
-
I believe it's actually 'stumped' in the book by could be wrong, there is no run being taken but batter is out of his crease so I can see run out being correct too
I had to look in the laws book. Initially it felt like run-out but now feel sure it's stumped.
-
So Tim Paine just did this in the Sheffield Shield and the commentators lorded it, but I have always considered it a bit village whenever you see it tried in club cricket.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CHZV8zOHE1H/?igshid=173vk9hjn2iko (https://www.instagram.com/p/CHZV8zOHE1H/?igshid=173vk9hjn2iko)
Smart cricket this by TPaine. I wish my keeper was this alert.
-
Ive done it a few times.
I would add i would only do it to a batsman because his going down the wicket consistently to a bowler, his trying to negate swing or disrupt the line and length of the bowler so why should i not be able to throw the stumps down.
I would not do it in a friendly.
Reading through the comments about keepers not standing up to medium pace. Standing up to me is less to do with pace and more the accuracy of the bowler. Not a chance im standing up to an uzi and wearing a full bunger or going for leg byes.
Lastly, its always a stumping. It would only not be a stumping if the umpire didnt know the rules or the batsman was attempting a run and which case this thread wouldn’t be relevant.
-
Play is live when the bowler starts his run-up.
Technically of course it is. I put it in inverted commas as the bowler can abort his run up. Mankad-ing is obviously an aborted run up. The Paine stumping is a continuation of a passage of play
-
Perfectly fine.. get in and stay in your crease.. really is that simple
-
I think this is perfectly fine the ball is dead when the ball "finally" rests in the keepers gloves. Absolutely not the case here.
What I object to is the keeper standing up and holding the ball next to the stumps for an age and then going for a stumping. There are examples of both Stewie and Ben Foakes doing this.
-
Lastly, its always a stumping. It would only not be a stumping if the umpire didnt know the rules or the batsman was attempting a run and which case this thread wouldn’t be relevant.
I agree it's a stumping. But the umpire only gives it out or not out, won't be the one recording the mode of dismissal in the book!
The law book maybe allows a margin of error in such matters: "...and where a run-out decision would also be acceptable" or something like that?
WK might feel a bit disgruntled at losing a scalp though!
-
I agree it's a stumping. But the umpire only gives it out or not out, won't be the one recording the mode of dismissal in the book!
The law book maybe allows a margin of error in such matters: "...and where a run-out decision would also be acceptable" or something like that?
WK might feel a bit disgruntled at losing a scalp though!
Fair point
-
"39.1.2 The striker is out Stumped if all the conditions of 39.1.1 are satisfied, even though a decision of Run out would be justified."
Was it Cardus who drew comparisons the Laws of Cricket and the British Constitution?
-
The laws of cricket are at least written down....
-
I think this is perfectly fine the ball is dead when the ball "finally" rests in the keepers gloves. Absolutely not the case here.
What I object to is the keeper standing up and holding the ball next to the stumps for an age and then going for a stumping. There are examples of both Stewie and Ben Foakes doing this.
Up to the umpires to decide when the ball is dead no? If the batsman holds his shot position then loses his balance getting back into the crease I would say it's still fair game.
-
I had a 'good discussion' with some umpires once after a similar situation in a match where I was coaching.
The opener on about the 3rd ball of his innings played a clear leave (he had done so for every ball so far), raising his bat and watching it carry through to the wicky under his arm, then dropped his bat and took a step or 2 forward to poke at something on the pitch. The wicky immediately under-armed it at the stumps and he was given out by the square leg.
I asked afterwards what he was actually given out for and was told run out. Here was my conclusion from opening the rules app and trying to express my outrage to the umpires at least assuming I may get an apology.
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
Clearly for the batsmen having not played a shot and having watched it carry through, in their mind it was "finally settled"? And in the context they were clearly not attempting a must-get run off a last ball? But who decides "finally settled" See law 20.2
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
Again, in context the batsmen stepping out his crease was probably a good 2 seconds after the ball had hit the gloves and was clearly not attempting a run ...both batsmen had clearly regarded it as no longer in play and clearly assumed the wicky would have the same view of the situation (spirit of the game?) Yet did the bowlers end umpire agree ... nope ... See law 20.2
20.2 Ball finally settled Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
Ah .... so this is the only clear guidance on this all. It is all at the umpires discretion.
Moral of the story: I went back and told the guys that as a tough lesson you just don't leave your crease as you have very little way of knowing what an umpire will / won't decide. (A bit like my response to getting bad LBW calls ... make sure you get bat on ball so you are not at the mercy of human interpretation)
-
I had a 'good discussion' with some umpires once after a similar situation in a match where I was coaching.
The opener on about the 3rd ball of his innings played a clear leave (he had done so for every ball so far), raising his bat and watching it carry through to the wicky under his arm, then dropped his bat and took a step or 2 forward to poke at something on the pitch. The wicky immediately under-armed it at the stumps and he was given out by the square leg.
I asked afterwards what he was actually given out for and was told run out. Here was my conclusion from opening the rules app and trying to express my outrage to the umpires at least assuming I may get an apology.
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
Clearly for the batsmen having not played a shot and having watched it carry through, in their mind it was "finally settled"? And in the context they were clearly not attempting a must-get run off a last ball? But who decides "finally settled" See law 20.2
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
Again, in context the batsmen stepping out his crease was probably a good 2 seconds after the ball had hit the gloves and was clearly not attempting a run ...both batsmen had clearly regarded it as no longer in play and clearly assumed the wicky would have the same view of the situation (spirit of the game?) Yet did the bowlers end umpire agree ... nope ... See law 20.2
20.2 Ball finally settled Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
Ah .... so this is the only clear guidance on this all. It is all at the umpires discretion.
Moral of the story: I went back and told the guys that as a tough lesson you just don't leave your crease as you have very little way of knowing what an umpire will / won't decide. (A bit like my response to getting bad LBW calls ... make sure you get bat on ball so you are not at the mercy of human interpretation)
I personally wouldn't have thrown down the stumps in that situation, but whenever I am batting I always expect/assume that the keeper will.
Don't leave the crease to do any gardening until the ball has been offloaded to first slip/another fielder. Easy.
-
Presumably if the keeper did a quick off-load to first-slip, and first-slip threw the stumps down, it would be completely different?
-
Presumably if the keeper did a quick off-load to first-slip, and first-slip threw the stumps down, it would be completely different?
Aside from cases of dropping/fumbling/missing the ball by the keeper, the only time first slip could be in possession is if the ball is dead in my opinion.
-
Does this mean you need to be extra careful if someone bowls a Harmy that goes straight to first slip?
-
Does this mean you need to be extra careful if someone bowls a Harmy that goes straight to first slip?
:D :D :D
I guess to be sure, you don't take that as a dead ball until first slip has offloaded it. Imagine a rancid wide resulting in a wicket because first slip threw them down after the batsman went for a walk, there would be serious aggro!
-
Wouldn't be stumped though, would it? Stumped has to be WK.