Print

[golden duck]

What is subjective is the interpretation of whether the ball is above the waist by the umpires.
Some also forget it is waist high in your stance and not standing up.

Wrong way round I'm afraid, from the law quoted above..


 passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease

[george_parv]

I was umpiring a friendly midweek match last night and this exact thing happened catch was taken from the bowler in a line in which I couldn't see the square leg umpire. Player then walks when caught, which is when I saw the no ball sign from the other umpire, gave the no ball and the bowler took the ball and ran out the batsman as he was walking on his way out. Wicket at the time was insignificant as the game was already in the bag but interesting circumstance, I feel i should have called a dead ball and reinstated the batsman?

[joeljonno]

Yep. Definitely. He wasn't attempting a run so it was not out.

[ProCricketer1982]

I was umpiring a friendly midweek match last night and this exact thing happened catch was taken from the bowler in a line in which I couldn't see the square leg umpire. Player then walks when caught, which is when I saw the no ball sign from the other umpire, gave the no ball and the bowler took the ball and ran out the batsman as he was walking on his way out. Wicket at the time was insignificant as the game was already in the bag but interesting circumstance, I feel i should have called a dead ball and reinstated the batsman?

It's not out. Can't run someone out like that

[Seniorplayer]

When judgement is required for balls above the batsmans waist when standing upright at the crease it is the bowlers end umpire who calls and signals No ball. To help the umpire at the bowlers  end make the correct decision his colleague the umpire at square leg should assist him with a No ball signal.

[golden duck]

Yep. Definitely. He wasn't attempting a run so it was not out.

Also, isn't there something about a batsman can't / not being given out for one thing (in this case run out)  if he is under the misapprehension that he is out for something else (caught) when he wasn't actually out.

Can't check at the moment, but it sounds like something I've read somewhere...

[ProCricketer1982]

Also, isn't there something about a batsman can't / not being given out for one thing (in this case run out)  if he is under the misapprehension that he is out for something else (caught) when he wasn't actually out.

Can't check at the moment, but it sounds like something I've read somewhere...

Yep, that's the one.

[Manormanic]

Just reread this thread and actually we all missed something.  Whilst it is not the responsibility of the square leg umpire to call no ball in this instance, the laws are clear that a call of no ball, once made, cannot be overruled.  So actually, regardless of whether the umpire was right or wrong, this should have been a no ball.

[george_parv]

Ah okay cheers for confirming that guys