Print

[ManHOOS]

Yes you heared it right.... if a bowler makes a mistake it must be the bowler who should penalised intstead of batsman ..... I fink batsman has been robbed SIX runs in this case.. watch yourself

http://youtu.be/5kKHlYbhBro

DISCUSS 

[tim2000s]

Yes you heared it right.... if a bowler makes a mistake it must be the bowler who should penalised intstead of batsman ..... I fink batsman has been robbed SIX runs in this case.. watch yourself

http://youtu.be/5kKHlYbhBro

DISCUSS 

Perfectly fair. If he had bowled the guy, by the same question, should he be out?

[ajmw89]

With those flashing stumps, I could see how that would be a distraction!

[Ryan]

Have to agree with buzz.  Should be a dead ball. This was looked at in the SA tests with England.

[Number4]

I think the rule should be changed and called a no ball... Batsman still gets a six and can only be run out

[tim2000s]

What did Buzz say?

[tim2000s]

I think the rule should be changed and called a no ball... Batsman still gets a six and can only be run out

That's only fair if, when playing a switch hit, if the batsman moves before he should, the batting side is penalised 5 runs...

[Number4]

That's only fair if, when playing a switch hit, if the batsman moves before he should, the batting side is penalised 5 runs...

Really has nothing to do with the bowler breaking the stumps as he bowls

[tim2000s]

Really has nothing to do with the bowler breaking the stumps as he bowls

No, it doesn't, but equally, if the stumps are broken, you can't be run out as easily at that end of the pitch, so making it a no ball with only a run out allowed becomes, shall we say interesting. Dead ball for me is the right answer.

Likewise, if in the run up and delivery, the hand coming through holding the ball knocked the bails off, and someone appealed for a run-out because the non-striker was out of their crease, should that be given?

[Johnny]

It's all the South Africans fault!

No body cared about the stumps being broken until, in a blatently obvious attempt to put Steve Finn off his game, they started moaning about it. Now, all round the world this kind of thing is happening. I think the ICC should be firmer and say it's not a problem - it's not as if it's a new thing - Shaun Pollock used to do it all the time.

That or the MCC need to make a rule change that leaves it less open to interpretation - it's very confusing for club players as well now

[wilkie113]

I think if the bowlers knocking the bails off, then why should they have the chance for getting a run out easily that end? It should be a no ball IMO. Dead ball just confuses everything, but if it's the same everywhere then I don't see a problem with it. As long as umpires do the same thing all the time

[Number4]

No, it doesn't, but equally, if the stumps are broken, you can't be run out as easily at that end of the pitch, so making it a no ball with only a run out allowed becomes, shall we say interesting. Dead ball for me is the right answer.

Likewise, if in the run up and delivery, the hand coming through holding the ball knocked the bails off, and someone appealed for a run-out because the non-striker was out of their crease, should that be given?

Well being harder to run out at the bowlers end is the bowlers fault so he should stop doing it.

And no it shouldn't be given out... It should be a no ball because he has unintentionally broken the stumps and continued to bowl... He hasn't attempted a run out

[ManHOOS]

Perfectly fair. If he had bowled the guy, by the same question, should he be out?

Ehrmmmmm ehm Fair    imo it should be like that if the batsmen score runs, he keeps them, and if he gets out or it is considered as a dot, it's a dead ball. THAT'S CALL " perfectly fair " .

With those flashing stumps, I could see how that would be a distraction!

lol is this thing related to the question asked   

Have to agree with buzz.  Should be a dead ball. This was looked at in the SA tests with England.

still if they call it dead ball wat is the fault of batsmen 

I think the rule should be changed and called a no ball... Batsman still gets a six and can only be run out

Hmmm make sense if they waana give batsman some reward 

What did Buzz say?

Dont know either maybe he has posted in his Pm about this 

That's only fair if, when playing a switch hit, if the batsman moves before he should, the batting side is penalised 5 runs...

Tim you are mixing it wierdly ehhh even more complicated 

[tim2000s]

Well being harder to run out at the bowlers end is the bowlers fault so he should stop doing it.

And no it shouldn't be given out... It should be a no ball because he has unintentionally broken the stumps and continued to bowl... He hasn't attempted a run out

I think it should remain as it always has been in the game. Not a dead ball and neither a no ball. The batsman should be given his six runs, and the bowler have to take it. It does seem to be Aussie umpires who call these dead balls rather than their UK equivalents though...

Tim you are mixing it wierdly ehhh even more complicated 

No, I'm simply making a point. Historically in the game of cricket, accidentally knocking the bails off has never been considered an issue worthy of dead ball or no ball. What's changed (other than Stephen Finn?)

[ManHOOS]

Some interesting replies here 

but in all fairness dont you think that they should ammend this rule to avoid controversies etc

plus for juniors or in some leagues it will be easy to implement the rule & it will much easier to follow ... Let's take example of myself...i dont want my SIXER in the parking area with all my energy & effort turn into a deadball just because that micky mouse has kicked stumps while bowling...