Print

[MD2812]

On the toe, gotta go!

[Number4]

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...

This is what Jenko said I believe

[Manormanic]

exactly - as exlained previously, the umpire has no way of gauging what the bounce will or will not be, so must assume that the ball continued on its current trajectory.  Translated, that means the ball can't be deemed to be going over if the strike was on the full.

[Number4]

exactly - as exlained previously, the umpire has no way of gauging what the bounce will or will not be, so must assume that the ball continued on its current trajectory.  Translated, that means the ball can't be deemed to be going over if the strike was on the full.

But... Now I'm confused... You said Jenko was incorrect?

[smilley792]

To jenko and all others.


You are on a forum, that means you have to explain everything fully and in details, close all loopholes! Otherwise your posted will be picked at, and questioned.

Happens everywhere, all forums are the same.

[Number4]

To jenko and all others.


You are on a forum, that means you have to explain everything fully and in details, close all loopholes! Otherwise your posted will be picked at, and questioned.

Happens everywhere, all forums are the same.

Are you serious??? There are other forums???

[smilley792]

Are you serious??? There are other forums???

1 or 2, non as expensive as this one!

[Jenko]

To jenko and all others.


You are on a forum, that means you have to explain everything fully and in details, close all loopholes! Otherwise your posted will be picked at, and questioned.

Happens everywhere, all forums are the same.

Two things - I also must ask, there are other forums!?!?!?

Secondly - maaaaaaate I'm Australian if we can shorten a word with good old Aussie slang we will, if We have to explain something entirely in detail we will probably pass on it

[richthekeeper]

this rule really winds me up for the reasons given earlier.

i got given out like this a couple of weeks ago. batting on leg, i came down the pitch to a seamer and was struck on the foot, on the full.

in my opinion there is no way that the ball would have hit the stumps, due to the trajectory of the delivery, it would have missed leg by some distance. however the (club) umpire gave it out on the basis that it hit me in line and on the full.

frustrating.

[joeljonno]

It has still got to be hitting the stumps, just because it hit you in line doesn't mean it's out.

I would suggest the umpire, not the rule is at fault.

[richthekeeper]

that was my point - the rule was applied incorrectly by the umpire.

apologies if unclear.

[ProCricketer1982]

Sounds plumb to me