One short. Never understood the logic

D3PO

This old chesnut was something I remembered whilst watching a game yesterday.

Ive always been intrigued by the one short rule. If you run 2 and are called 1 short it makes no sense that the batting team gets one run. If you dont run the first one correctly surely the second one shouldnt count as its like your running back to make your ground surely ??

Very bizzare rule that when you think about it has no real logic.

Beasty

The argument I guess for getting one run is the batsmen do cross twice, and one batsman does properly run two runs - arguably they are at least 75% of the way there to the second run, so why not at least award them one

Not sure what the rule would be if both batsmen failed to ground, or if one failed to ground at both ends when running for 3! I am sure some of the excellent umpires we have contributing to this forum could comment;)

D3PO

I take the argument but logically still doesnt add up to me.

Renno

Beasty wrote: »

Not sure what the rule would be if both batsmen failed to ground, or if one failed to ground at both ends when running for 3! I am sure some of the excellent umpires we have contributing to this forum could comment

If both batsmen run short on the same run, it only counts as one run short. If one batsman ran short twice whilst running three, the batting team would only get one run.

If the short running is deliberate, the Laws get really fun.

D3PO

I know the law I just cant fathom the logic. I just think its one of those silly laws of the game

djimi

I suppose the way they look on it is that batsmen generally dont deliberately run short runs (at least I dont think they do; it happens so rarely it would suggest they dont anyway) so when it happens its a mistake and not really cheating, so no sense in going over the top punishing it.

I get what youre saying tho. In reality its no different from the batsmen running half way down the wicket, crossing, then deciding to turn around and run back. Just because its usually hald an inch rather than ten feet its essentially the same thing!

HonalD

D3PO wrote: »

This old chesnut was something I remembered whilst watching a game yesterday.

Ive always been intrigued by the one short rule. If you run 2 and are called 1 short it makes no sense that the batting team gets one run. If you dont run the first one correctly surely the second one shouldnt count as its like your running back to make your ground surely ??

Very bizzare rule that when you think about it has no real logic.

It probably started off as a "just in case a mistake is made" rule - it did start off as a gentleman's game

I haven't thought this through but should the same rule apply to the striker or the non-striker? It is the striker's "runs" to gain so if the striker runs short, perhaps no runs should be scored but if the non-striker runs 1 out of 2 runs short then 1 may be fair for the striker (who ran 2)......ok, time to lie down