The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Was Ian Bell out yesterday?

Home Forums General Sports Was Ian Bell out yesterday?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3873
    betlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2775

    Bell was the non-striker, KP smacked the ball back, it touched Jayasuriya’s hand then went on to the stumps.

    Frame-by-frame showed that Bell grounded his bat behind the crease before the ball hit the stumps.  His bat then popped up in the air at the exact moment the bails came off.

    Three things:

    1.  I thought that was not out anyway (?).<br>2.  If not, surely it should be as the batsman has already made his ground initially.<br>3.  Again if not, what a stupid way of using the technology, penalising the batsman who has legitimately made his ground then had his bat ride up when hitting a scuff on the pitch etc.

    Mike

    #89729
    Pompete
    Member
    • Total Posts 2391

    1.  I thought that was not out anyway (?). <br>2.  If not, surely it should be as the batsman has already made his ground initially.

    Mike…I’ve played cricket for 20 odd years and never known any law to cover not being in when you’ve grounded your bat. I also thought that the benefit of doubt was always given to the Batsman…who can always choose to walk.

    So, sorry, but I’m as mystified as you 😮

    BTW: just found out the 25th over was only a 5 baller!!

    <br>

    (Edited by Pompete at 4:23 pm on April 5, 2007)

    #89730
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    I’ve not double checked the rules of cricket and I only saw the incident one time and with the sound turned off.

    But …

    My understanding (as someone who used to play) with run outs is that you have to be grounded in some way to be in.

    That means some part of your bat or body must be touching the turf.

    Otherwise, you’re out.

    We see examples of that in stumpings when a batsmen has his back foot in the crease when the ball reaches the keeper’s gloves. Then gets unblanaced, lifts the foot temporarily and the keeper swipes the bails.  

    However, as I said, I haven’t doubled checked with the rules, so I could be wrong.

    As for the bowler’s hand, I know this one.

    If the striking batsman hits the ball against his teammates stumps, it’s not out

    .. unless …

    a fielder touches the ball on the way to the stumps, in which case the non-striker (i.e. part of his body or bat, touching the ground) has to be in his crease or he’s given out.

    So, if Bell’s bat was in the air, I reckon it was the correct decision.

    Steve

    #89731
    betlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2775

    I’ve not double checked the rules of cricket and I only saw the incident one time and with the sound turned off.

    But …

    My understanding (as someone who used to play) with run outs is that you have to be grounded in some way to be in.

    That means some part of your bat or body must be touching the turf.

    Otherwise, you’re out.

    We see examples of that in stumpings when a batsmen has his back foot in the crease when the ball reaches the keeper’s gloves. Then gets unblanaced, lifts the foot temporarily and the keeper swipes the bails.  

    However, as I said, I haven’t doubled checked with the rules, so I could be wrong.

    As for the bowler’s hand, I know this one.

    If the striking batsman hits the ball against his teammates stumps, it’s not out

    .. unless …

    a fielder touches the ball on the way to the stumps, in which case the non-striker (i.e. part of his body or bat, touching the ground) has to be in his crease or he’s given out.

    So, if Bell’s bat was in the air, I reckon it was the correct decision.

    Steve

    <br>Yes Steve, but he HAD grounded his bat behind the crease before the ball hit the stumps.  It’s just that at the precise split-second the bails came off, his bat had ridden-up off the ground.

    I can see that this maybe out under the rules but surely the rules need changing as we now have access to frame-by-frame analysis.

    Obviously if he was tring to leave his crease for another run that would be different, but his bat was travelling backwards (maybe that should be the rule change) and had been correctly grounded behind the crease prior to it bouncing in the air.

    Mike<br>

    #89732
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    Yes Steve, but he HAD grounded his bat behind the crease before the ball hit the stumps.  It’s just that at the precise split-second the bails came off, his bat had ridden-up off the ground.

    I don’t understand.

    Mike, are you saying you think Bell should be "let away with it"?

    If he wasn’t grounded when the bails came off, he was out … even if he’s English.

    (again, assuming my understanding of the rules is correct)

    I can see that this maybe out under the rules

    Then why are you pleading a case for Bell?

    Surely you should be saying "Bell was rightly out, but the rules need to be changed"?

    but surely the rules need changing as we now have access to frame-by-frame analysis.

    I would have thought that frame by frame makes it easier to apply the current rule?

    IMO, a change in the rules means a complication of the rules.

    Right now, they have a moment Y, the moment when the bails come off, when the batsman needs to be grounded.

    If the rule is changed so someone is in if they "are or were" grounded, then you need 2 moments, X or Y where a batsman is in if:

    "he or any part of his bat touched the ground between X and Y (the moment when the bails came off)"

    Now, you have to define X so it is all-encompassing and  simple to identify and assign with the mimimum of error or argument.

    I can think of very few of these "bouncing bat" dismissals so, to me, it’s a convoluted solution to a problem that rarely exists.

    It’s a bit like the "need" for TV evidence to show when the ball goes over the line in football.

    How often is that needed?

    But it’s called for once a year when a mistake is made.

    Steve

    PS I just watched the Bell wicket on youtube. The commentator called it out before the 3rd umpire, so it would suggest I was right about the rules.

    #89733
    betlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2775

    I can think of very few of these "bouncing bat" dismissals so, to me, it’s a convoluted solution to a problem that rarely exists.

    <br>There not everyday occurrences, granted, but I’ve certainly seen a few (stumpings as well as run-outs).

    And it’s hardly a "convoluted solution." The law could simply state that if the batsman has grounded his bat behind the crease before the ball hits the stumps he cannot be out, providing his bat was travelling towards the stumps.  Very easy to apply with the new technology.

    You imply that I would have given him not out because he was English.  This is nonsense.  I would have given him not out because he plays for Warwickshire.

    Mike

    #89734
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    The law could simply state that if the batsman has grounded his bat behind the crease before the ball hits the stumps he cannot be out, providing his bat was travelling towards the stumps.  

    This couldn’t work as a rule as it’s lacking a definition for moment X.

    moment X = the first moment after which the batsman can "ground himself"

    moment y = the last moment from which a batsman can no longer "ground himself" (usually the moment the bails are dislodged)

    Also, what happens if the batsman’s bat changes direction in between moments X and Y?

    (e.g. he think about taking a run on a misfield)

    You need to have an explicit explanation for that too.

    See, this is what by the complication of having "is or was grounded". You need to give an explanation for anything that could reasonably occur within a time period.

    While the current rule, which is defined by the state of affairs at one moment, doesn’t have those problems.

    I would have given him not out because he plays for Warwickshire. :biggrin:

    Steve<br>  

    #89735
    betlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2775

    Surely the whole point of the law is to make sure that batsmen have ‘made their ground’?  If their bat suddenly pops into the air at just the wrong nano-second due to hitting a bobble on the turf etc it seems wrong that they should be given out.  They have still made their ground.

    The reason I don’t like this is because the frame-by-frame technology seems to have created a ‘new’ form of dismissal – the batsman has previously made his ground but now we have the means to see his bat is fractionally lifted at the wrong moment, we’re going to give him out.  Almost impossible to do with the naked eye, of course.

    To be honest I can’t see the problem with a rule such as this:

    If the batsman has grounded his bat behind the crease before the stumps are broken, he cannot subsequently be given out whilst his bat is travelling towards the stumps.

    Therefore if he sets off on another run, runs on a misfield etc, he becomes ‘live’ again.  I actually think this could be easier to apply, as once the batsman has grounded his bat behind the crease (point x) everything else is irrelevant (providing he doesn’t try to run again).

    Mike<br>

    #89736
    Pompete
    Member
    • Total Posts 2391

    Steve…surely the point is was the dismissal with the ‘spirit of the law’. Bell’s bat wasn’t grounded due to a fluke and not because he was attempting to gain an advantage.

    Nevertheless…you are right…if he weren’t English I wouldn’t care :biggrin: We woz robbed :angry:

    #89737
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    To be honest I can’t see the problem with a rule such as this:

    If the batsman has grounded his bat behind the crease before the stumps are broken, he cannot subsequently be given out whilst his bat is travelling towards the stumps.

    Well, for start, if the momentum of a batsman’s run takes him past the stumps, he’s then travelling away from the stumps.

    So, using your rule, he can be run out.

    Similarly, if he is moving at an angle that takes the tip of the bat towards the crease but away from the stumps, what happens?  

    Of course, you’ll say "that’s silly" or "that’s not what I meant" but it shows that your rule isn’t sufficiently properly formed to be a good and workable rule for a sport.

    And it still doesn’t define "moment X".

    Is that when the bowler delivers the ball?

    Surely not. As that would allow the non-striker to stride up the pitch as far as he would like just before the ball is to be bowled.

    The current definition of "Batsman out of his ground" is:

    A batsman shall be considered to be out of his ground unless his bat or some part of his person is grounded behind the popping crease at that end.<br>

    Which is so much simpler as it doesn’t have to cover the range of possibilities that precede the moment the wicket is broken.

    Bell was unlucky (or careless) to get out and the rules aren’t really "in the spirit of things".

    However, the rules are the rules because they are the best way to define the situation without going into 3 pages of "if this, then that".

    And, of course, if the rules were changed, the first player to benefit would no doubt be Ricky Ponting against England.

    :biggrin:

    Steve

    #89738
    betlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2775

    Well, for start, if the momentum of a batsman’s run takes him past the stumps, he’s then travelling away from the stumps.

    So, using your rule, he can be run out.

    OK – towards the direction of the stands, main road, bus-stop etc behind the stumps.  It’s perfectly obvious what it means.  Shall we say, providing the bat does not change direction back towards the other set of stumps then?!!

    Similarly, if he is moving at an angle that takes the tip of the bat towards the crease but away from the stumps, what happens?

    Simple.  Providing he is not moving back to the other set of stumps, once he has grounded his bat behind the line he can’t be out.

    And it still doesn’t define "moment X".

    Yes it does.  As stated, it is when the batsman first grounds his bat behind the line.

    As that would allow the non-striker to stride up the pitch as far as he would like just before the ball is to be bowled.

    Well, he is now allowed to do that under new (stupid) rules brought in this season anyway.  However, he still has to get to either crease and ground his bat behind the line to prevent a run-out, stumping etc.

    Mike<br>

    #89739
    Andrew Hughes
    Member
    • Total Posts 1904

    Firstly, this discussion illustrates why I love cricket more than any other sport in the world.

    As far as I see, Bell was out fair and square and the rules already cover it.

    Law 38 (run outs) states:

    Either batsman is run out if at any time while the ball is in play, (i) he is out of his ground and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side

    Law 23 covers what is a dead ball. It gives numerous examples of when the ball is dead, but for this case, the relevant parts are:

    (a) the ball becomes dead when (i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket keeper or bowler

    (b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the umpire at the bowler’s end that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as being in play

    Bell’s bat was in the air and therefore he was out of his ground when the opposition fairly threw the stumps down and the ball was not dead, so he was out. Had he kept his bat on the ground, he would not have been out and the ball would then have been dead when picked up by the nearest fielder, providing there were no overthrows, fielding mistakes or so on. He would then be free to use his bat to clean his ear, scratch his arse or twirl it in the air like a baton. That is provided his spindly little arms could lift it that high.

    :biggrin:

    (Edited by Aranalde at 9:01 pm on April 7, 2007)

    #89740
    betlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2775

    Aranalde

    Yes, it’s a wonderfully arcane debate isn’t it?

    No argument, he’s clearly out under the rules of the game.  It’s just the rule I’m questioning.

    Anyway you said in a previous post that you watch your cricket at New Road.  This surely disqualifies you from rational thought.

    And you’re probably married to your sister.

    Mike<br>

    #89741
    Andrew Hughes
    Member
    • Total Posts 1904

    Its worse than that, Betlarge, I’m a Worcester supporter who hasn’t even been to New Road for quite a while. The only cricket I get to see live is in my own village or annual international affairs at the Ladywood Lagerbowl. Though I am hoping to catch Mr Warne there at the end of May.

    By rights I should support Shropshire anyway, but where’s the point in that. It’d be like supporting Wolves.

    I’m sure you’re right about the sister thing, but I only have a brother and he’s not much of a looker so that was never really an option.

    #89742
    Andrew Hughes
    Member
    • Total Posts 1904

    By the way, it looks like Bangladesh are about to throw a great big spanner into the works. A shock in the Super Eights was desperately needed.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.