Question on rules

Since the rule change about defending your stumps under whar circumstances is it possible to be given out for hitting the ball twice?

taipan wrote:Since the rule change about defending your stumps under whar circumstances is it possible to be given out for hitting the ball twice?

When you are not defending your stumps

Mick Sawyer wrote:

taipan wrote:Since the rule change about defending your stumps under whar circumstances is it possible to be given out for hitting the ball twice?

When you are not defending your stumps

Obviously, but isn't the rule virtually defunct then.

1. Out Hit the ball twice
(a) The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any part of his person or is struck by his bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, he wilfully strikes it again with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket. See 3 below and Laws 33 (Handled the ball) and 37 (Obstructing the field).

(b) For the purpose of this Law, 'struck' or 'strike' shall include contact with the person of the striker.

2. Not out Hit the ball twice
Notwithstanding 1(a) above, the striker will not be out under this Law if
(i) he makes a second or subsequent stroke in order to return the ball to any member of the fielding side. Note, however, the provisions of Law 37.4 (Returning the ball to a member of the fielding side).
(ii) he wilfully strikes the ball after it has touched a fielder. Note, however, the provisions of Law 37.1 (Out Obstructing the field).

3. Ball lawfully struck more than once
Solely in order to guard his wicket and before the ball has been touched by a fielder, the striker may lawfully strike the ball more than once with his bat or with any part of his person other than a hand not holding the bat.
Notwithstanding this provision, the striker may not prevent the ball from being caught by making more than one stroke in defence of his wicket. See Law 37.3 (Obstructing a ball from being caught).

Thanks

taipan wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

taipan wrote:Since the rule change about defending your stumps under whar circumstances is it possible to be given out for hitting the ball twice?

When you are not defending your stumps

Obviously, but isn't the rule virtually defunct then.

Not if it pops up or dribbles off in some direction other than towards the stumps.

taipan wrote:Thanks

Cheers mate

It happened in my sons match at the weekend. I wasn't there but there was a bit of debate about it.

taipan wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

taipan wrote:Since the rule change about defending your stumps under whar circumstances is it possible to be given out for hitting the ball twice?

When you are not defending your stumps

Obviously, but isn't the rule virtually defunct then.

It covers circumstances that will "never" happen ...like TIMED OUT...but is there in case some nutter batsman makes " never" happen ...

taipan wrote:It happened in my sons match at the weekend. I wasn't there but there was a bit of debate about it.

Got a rough outline of what happened?

embee wrote:

taipan wrote:It happened in my sons match at the weekend. I wasn't there but there was a bit of debate about it.

Got a rough outline of what happened?

Played forward, the ball popped, swatted it away from the stumps.

My first question was there a possibility of a catch because then obstructing the field would come into play.

My line about the ball popping up reminds me of the story where the day after the under arm ball, Doug Walters bet Rod Marsh that he could have hit that delivery for 6. marsh accepts the wager. They go down to the nets with some other player appoibted as arbitrator. Marsh delivers the ball underarm. Walters advances down to wicket, sticks hit boot out, the ball pops up & KDW smeared it outa the facility.

Funnily enough, there were pictures in the newspapers here of GP doing exactly the same

Played forward, the ball popped, swatted it away from the stumps.

Were the stumps in danger? If yes, he's OK. If no, he's gawn.

My first question was there a possibility of a catch because then obstructing the field would come into play.

The extract from the Laws that I posted covers it. He can be given out, defending his stumps if he was judged to have prevented a catch being taken.

taipan wrote:Funnily enough, there were pictures in the newspapers here of GP doing exactly the same

The great men!

The stumps were in danger.

That was my take on it.

taipan wrote:The stumps were in danger.

That was my take on it.

This is his only other problem then:

"the striker may not prevent the ball from being caught by making more than one stroke in defence of his wicket."

The way I heard it, the keeper was too far away

taipan wrote:The way I heard it, the keeper was too far away

Not Out!

I concur.

But with player umps you can understand it got a bit heated.

Mick Sawyer wrote:My line about the ball popping up reminds me of the story where the day after the under arm ball, Doug Walters bet Rod Marsh that he could have hit that delivery for 6. marsh accepts the wager. They go down to the nets with some other player appoibted as arbitrator. Marsh delivers the ball underarm. Walters advances down to wicket, sticks hit boot out, the ball pops up & KDW smeared it outa the facility.

Walters would now be out HtBt if he did this.

Law 34 says:
Out Hit the ball twice
(a) The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any part of his person or is struck by his bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, he wilfully strikes it again with his bat or person ...

That's correct , tya ...however....if the shot was the original swing at the ball and was capable of hitting the ball on it's original path then it is not hitting the ball twice ...eg. a pad to bat scenario ...it's only when there is a delay or second swing that the rule applies

embee wrote:That's correct , tya ...however....if the shot was the original swing at the ball and was capable of hitting the ball on it's original path then it is not hitting the ball twice ...eg. a pad to bat scenario ...it's only when there is a delay or second swing that the rule applies

True, but the Walters scenario is clearly a deliberate second hit. Having said that, i'm not sure that the law was the same then. Must look it up in Wisden some time.

taipan wrote:I concur.

But with player umps you can understand it got a bit heated.

Sure. What decision was made?

Mick Sawyer wrote:

taipan wrote:I concur.

But with player umps you can understand it got a bit heated.

Sure. What decision was made?

Well since the batting team was umpiring, not out.