Print

[pie-man]

I wondered peoples views on some decisions from this weekend.  Im out following the finger injury but watched the last hour of my team and there were two incidents that got me thinking...

1.  Batmen given out caught behind off a spinner when the ball clearly came off the thigh pad (different noise to glove).  The umpire didn't know if it was gloved so asked square-leg if he was out.  Question is, should/can and umpire ask square leg if the batsmen hit it, or should this be reserved for questions about whether the ball carried, for example.

2.  Batsmen smoked a ball which hit short leg on the helmet and was nearly caught at mid-on.  Can you be caught off the fielding side's helmet of is it an automatic dead ball?

Cheers!

[tim2000s]

I wondered peoples views on some decisions from this weekend.  Im out following the finger injury but watched the last hour of my team and there were two incidents that got me thinking...

1.  Batmen given out caught behind off a spinner when the ball clearly came off the thigh pad (different noise to glove).  The umpire didn't know if it was gloved so asked square-leg if he was out.  Question is, should/can and umpire ask square leg if the batsmen hit it, or should this be reserved for questions about whether the ball carried, for example.

2.  Batsmen smoked a ball which hit short leg on the helmet and was nearly caught at mid-on.  Can you be caught off the fielding side's helmet of is it an automatic dead ball?

Cheers!

1. I'm not sure, but I believe the laws state that umpires may consult whenever it is necessary, if they need clarity. So this is okay if he believes the other umpire had a better view.

2. No, it's not dead. If the ball ricochets of a fielder's helmet, you cannot be caught but the ball is still in play.

[fasteddie]

It's often better if they concur. At least they have a moment to consider a tricky decision.

We had a similar situation many years back, but it was off the blokes head! That was given out. He was pole axed and we just all left him and appealed! So much for caring.

[pie-man]

I agree its best when the ump's concur, although in this case the standing umpire originally gave not out, then decided to check.

After the game, came over the batsmen and apologised!

[pie-man]

thinking about it, do we have any umpires on the forum?  Not to give any sort of abuse of course, just interesting to get their perspective

[golden duck]

I've done the level 1 & 1A stuff - so you could say 'semi informed'... enough to know what I don't know!

generally i've always been told that umpiring is a team game in itself.  It's always better to take a moment and have a discussion with your partner if your unsure of anything, as opposed to making a quick decision that might be wrong.

So 1) Nothing wrong with having a chat, then giving the bat out (or not).
2) as tim said - not a dead ball (so you could still be run out), but cannot be caught.  No penalty runs (as the helmet was being worn. ball becomes dead if it hits the helmet when it's on the ground for example behind keeper).

[GarrettJ]

are you sure about point 2? I remember a test match when some dude hit the ball on to someones foot and then it was caught out. Is it the fact its the helmet?

[pie-man]

Many thanks!

Yeah, I was surprised because as you say, can be caught off any other body part of the fielder.  Is it just lid, or head?  So, could you be caught off the head if the fielder isn't wearing a lid?

[sgcricket]

It is just the helmet. If it hits his cap, then it is still out. Helmet is not considered normal attire for the fielder. Hence the rule.

[pie-man]

It is just the helmet. If it hits his cap, then it is still out. Helmet is not considered normal attire for the fielder. Hence the rule.

Cheers for clearing that up!

[MD2812]

It is just a helmet being worn that means the ball is still live but deemed to have been grounded.

I write this with a cut above my lip giving me an "Adolf" wearing one off the batsmans gloves whilst stood up, but thankfully catching it afterwards. If I had been wearing my lid, it would have been a dot ball and my good looks remained intact.

It is only the helmet, being worn, which when struck grounds the ball. Pads/boots the ball is still live and out if caught.

Edit: I believe there may be a clause where if the ball hits a fielder in the face head with such force that the fielder/non striking batsman/umpire is deemed to need medical attention then the ball is a dead ball. Tim will probably be able to confirm this as he's very clued up on the rules.

 

[tim2000s]

Edit: I believe there may be a clause where if the ball hits a fielder in the face head with such force that the fielder/non striking batsman/umpire is deemed to need medical attention then the ball is a dead ball. Tim will probably be able to confirm this as he's very clued up on the rules.

Dead ball is called when there is a serious injury to a player or umpire. Serious injury is not defined, but I'd suggest that anything requiring them to leave the pitch would be deemed serious.

On the first point, if the bowler's end umpire originally gave it not out (which I missed when reading the topic) then really, he should not go and confer with the Square Leg umpire and change his mind. He should always confer before a decision.

[sgcricket]

If the fielder (other than wicketkeeper) wears the pads outside his trousers, then the same applies for that as well. But if it is worn inside the trousers, then you can be out caught.

shoes, shirt, pants, cap/hat will constitute part of his normal attire

[sgcricket]

Dead ball is called when there is a serious injury to a player or umpire. Serious injury is not defined, but I'd suggest that anything requiring them to leave the pitch would be deemed serious.

On the first point, if the bowler's end umpire originally gave it not out (which I missed when reading the topic) then really, he should not go and confer with the Square Leg umpire and change his mind. He should always confer before a decision.

thats what he should ideally do. but technically he still can confer and change his decision.

[MD2812]

If the fielder (other than wicketkeeper) wears the pads outside his trousers, then the same applies for that as well. But if it is worn inside the trousers, then you can be out caught.

shoes, shirt, pants, cap/hat will constitute part of his normal attire

I thought it was a no ball if the fielder had pads on the outside of his whites?

I thought only the keeper was allowed to do this.

Tim: Does the umpire have to call dead ball before the catch is taken?