Umpire/scoring question

djimi

I suspect I know the answer to this already but Id just like to clarify!

If a wide is bowled off of a front foot no ball (or any no ball really I guess) then which takes precedence, or are they both counted against the bowler (2 run penalty)?

Renno

Law 24

10. No ball to over-ride Wide

A call of No ball shall over-ride the call of Wide ball at any time. See Laws 25.1(Judging a Wide) and 25.3 (Call and signal of Wide ball).

djimi

Thanks Renno. Looks like I chose the wrong option yesterday so

djimi

Another question while Im at it. Am I right in saying that it is a no ball if some part of the bowlers front foot does not land in front of the stumps (ie if the front foot lands entirely behind the line of the stumps)? I had thought that it was, but I cant find anything in the laws to back that up.

minitrue

Law 24

5. Fair delivery - the feet

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride,

(a) the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his stated mode of delivery.

(b) the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised

(i) on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in (a) above and (ii) behind the popping crease.

If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

Ignore (b) here as that's about the front-foot.

If the umpire is not satisfied that the back foot stayed within the return crease (which "shall be considered to be unlimited in length") then they shall call a no ball.

The way I understand that this is meant to be applied is that if the Umpire has doubts about if they were inside the width because the bowler bowls from far enough back to make it unclear to the umpire (and they weren't close enough in for it to be obvious it was legal), they should call a no ball.

The umpire should be standing some metres back from the stumps (for one to minimise eye movement from looking at the bowlers feet to looking at the ball) so it would be a very odd bowler who would be bowling from behind them or far enough back that the umpire can't be reasonably sure.

So the answer to your question as asked is no, but with the caveat that the further back the bowler bowls the more chance there is they may raise doubts in the umpires mind about whether their back foot landed legally and the umpire only needs reasonable doubt to call a no ball in such a case.

TheDrog

were you playing yesterday Djimi?

HonalD

Here's an interesting one to consider.

A batsman is run out but was impeded by a fielder. In the Laws it allows for the umpire to call a dead ball (I think) if the action was wilful but if the batsman is already run out then the ball becomes dead before the umpires call.

Can the run out be over ruled?

Rascasse

HonalD wrote: »

Here's an interesting one to consider.

A batsman is run out but was impeded by a fielder. In the Laws it allows for the umpire to call a dead ball (I think) if the action was wilful but if the batsman is already run out then the ball becomes dead before the umpires call.

Can the run out be over ruled?

Yes, law 42.5(c)

http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/

HonalD

Rascasse wrote: »

Yes, law 42.5(c)

http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/

Ok, thanks.