Print

[13th Man]

Ok this might show I don't know the rules as interpreted by an umpire.

My partner who bats outside the crease, tried to sweep (took  a big step) and was hit on the full.  Umpire gave him out stating because it hit him on the full.

I don't understand this - can anyone enlighten me?

[13th Man]

Yes it was in line, and hit him on the full low.

[Jenko]

Umpire has to assume if it hits him on the full and in front that it is going on to hit the stumps.

[13th Man]

Thanks Jenko, I just thought that far down it would pass over the stumps or be impossible to tell.

[smokem]

Where did it hit him if u say it would have passed OVER the stumps?

[Steveo1000]

If he was facing a spinner then the umpire might be refering to the fact that if hit on the full, the umpire will discount any potential turn and only take into account the point of impact.
Having said that, if he was facing a spinner then he has bigger problems to worry about if he is standing outside his crease while facing!

[Manormanic]

Umpire has to assume if it hits him on the full and in front that it is going on to hit the stumps.

Not quite - this is a common misconception amongst badly trained umpires and ignorant players. 

The umpire should assume if the ball hits the batsman on the full that it would have continued on its present trajectory and that it would not have deviated due to spin/seam/extra bounce.  The rule does not mean that a ball that had it kissed the turf would have headed down leg should be given out because it struck the batsman on the full, it merely means that the umpire should discount everything but the trajectory of the ball.  This is most obviously a factor in two situations:

• where you have a bowler who is spinning the ball sharply - here the perceived spin might have been seen (prior to the clarification of the laws) as a factor mitigating in favour of the batsman, but no more.
• where the batsman is struck on the full a long way down the wicket.  Here a batsman struck after the ball has pitched would normally get the benefit of the doubt, even though no such concept exists in the laws, because the bounce of the ball comes into play - but with a ball striking on the full, the umpire has merely to be satisfied that the ball struck him in line and would have continued to hit the stumps

Of course, the umpire in the original post may be of the badly trained variety, because it is difficult for a player well down the track to be hit in line by a ball that would have gone on to hit, but hey ho...

[smilley792]

Maybe he Bowles like Malinga? Or a nice round arm spinner?
Stump to stump bowling is the name of the game.

[Manormanic]

stump to stump is possible, but without hearing that someone specifically bowls like Malinga I'm gonna assume not!

[smokem]

Not quite - this is a common misconception amongst badly trained umpires and ignorant players. 

The umpire should assume if the ball hits the batsman on the full that it would have continued on its present trajectory and that it would not have deviated due to spin/seam/extra bounce.  The rule does not mean that a ball that had it kissed the turf would have headed down leg should be given out because it struck the batsman on the full, it merely means that the umpire should discount everything but the trajectory of the ball.  This is most obviously a factor in two situations:

• where you have a bowler who is spinning the ball sharply - here the perceived spin might have been seen (prior to the clarification of the laws) as a factor mitigating in favour of the batsman, but no more.
• where the batsman is struck on the full a long way down the wicket.  Here a batsman struck after the ball has pitched would normally get the benefit of the doubt, even though no such concept exists in the laws, because the bounce of the ball comes into play - but with a ball striking on the full, the umpire has merely to be satisfied that the ball struck him in line and would have continued to hit the stumps

Of course, the umpire in the original post may be of the badly trained variety, because it is difficult for a player well down the track to be hit in line by a ball that would have gone on to hit, but hey ho...

I'm not Jenko but I took his comment as what you have written. Just not in so many words. Not even close...

[scragend]

I'm not Jenko but I took his comment as what you have written. Just not in so many words. Not even close...

What Jenko was saying was different. He said "Umpire has to assume if it hits him on the full and in front that it is going on to hit the stumps".

Suppose the bowler delivered the ball from very wide of the crease and slanted it massively in, the batsman took a stride or two down and tried to flick it over mid wicket but missed and it hit his front pad on the full, in line with leg stump. That ball wouldn't have hit another two or three sets of stumps down the leg side but, using "Jenko's rule", it would be out because it was on the full and in line with the stumps. Load of rubbish.

Manormanic explained it very well. If you wanted to put it a bit more succinctly, you could say that the umpire must assume the ball is continuing "straight on its existing line", not going "straight on" - they're not the same thing!

[Jenko]

Sheesh 'Jenko's Rule' I was giving a short and sharp answer apologies for not quoting the rule book directly - will avoid wasting my time anymore in case the forum umpiring police come my way!! I'm not an umpire so clearly just an 'ignorant player'

[13th Man]

Thanks Jenko.  . I understood what you were saying.
The bowler was a medium and the batsman took a big step down the wicket, batting outside his crease, hit on the full on the foot, trying to slog sweep.  Not a shot I would have tried.
I just can't work out how still, that distance down the pitch you can be given out with any confidence that the ball would not go over the stumps. 
Cheers
Mark

[TangoWhiskey]

Assuming that he has come down the track and played a shot, if the ball hits him it merely has to be inline and is going on to hit the stumps in the Umpires opinion. How far down the wicket the batsman is is irrelevant, though the umpire can use the distance as justification to give benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

[tim2000s]

Thanks Jenko.  . I understood what you were saying.
The bowler was a medium and the batsman took a big step down the wicket, batting outside his crease, hit on the full on the foot, trying to slog sweep.  Not a shot I would have tried.
I just can't work out how still, that distance down the pitch you can be given out with any confidence that the ball would not go over the stumps. 
Cheers
Mark

If you take a look at this: http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws-in-action/law-36-in-action/ you'll see the discussion in the answer of the height at which the ball hits the batsman. The key statement is that the umpire does not need to take into account what might have happened if the ball had pitched.