Controversial Run Out

[Bombers4EVA]

Hey all. Did you see the controversial run out of David Wagner for New Zealand against Bangladesh? What do you think of the decision to give him out even though he was at least a metre behind the line?

[heater31]

Hey all. Did you see the controversial run out of David Wagner for New Zealand against Bangladesh? What do you think of the decision to give him out even though he was at least a metre behind the line?

Was he taking evasive action to avoid the ball coming in?

[Bombers4EVA]

Hey all. Did you see the controversial run out of David Wagner for New Zealand against Bangladesh? What do you think of the decision to give him out even though he was at least a metre behind the line?

Was he taking evasive action to avoid the ball coming in?

Nope. He had just came back from his 2nd run. He had grounded his bat over the line. But it got caught and as his feet and the bat also were just off the ground as the ball hit the wicket. He was given out. But he was at least a full metre behind the crease at the time of when the bails came off.

[Dogwatcher]

Within the full sense of the rules, it's a fair decision.
Probably wouldn't have been given if there was no third umpire, though.

[amber_fluid]

Within the full sense of the rules, it's a fair decision.
Probably wouldn't have been given if there was no third umpire, though.

unfortunate but it's out according to the rules.

[Bombers4EVA]

Within the full sense of the rules, it's a fair decision.
Probably wouldn't have been given if there was no third umpire, though.

I understand the rules. But he had already grounded the bat over the line. And as far as I am concerned, the bat is part of the arm. Correct?? Just like if a bowler hits a batter on the glove and it carries through to the keeper and is caught. That is out. Because the hand is part of the bat. Correct?? I just think that rule in particular needs looking at.

[amber_fluid]

Within the full sense of the rules, it's a fair decision.
Probably wouldn't have been given if there was no third umpire, though.

I understand the rules. But he had already grounded the bat over the line. And as far as I am concerned, the bat is part of the arm. Correct?? Just like if a bowler hits a batter on the glove and it carries through to the keeper and is caught. That is out. Because the hand is part of the bat. Correct?? I just think that rule in particular needs looking at.

From memory it was changed about 5 years ago.
It use to be as you have mentioned but they changed it to be your bat and feet had to touch over the crease and not just your bat.

[Bombers4EVA]

Within the full sense of the rules, it's a fair decision.
Probably wouldn't have been given if there was no third umpire, though.

I understand the rules. But he had already grounded the bat over the line. And as far as I am concerned, the bat is part of the arm. Correct?? Just like if a bowler hits a batter on the glove and it carries through to the keeper and is caught. That is out. Because the hand is part of the bat. Correct?? I just think that rule in particular needs looking at.

From memory it was changed about 5 years ago.
It use to be as you have mentioned but they changed it to be your bat and feet had to touch over the crease and not just your bat.

Stupid bloody rule. Should be plain and simple and say that once you've crossed the line with either of your body or bat, you should be safe.

[Trader]

Yeah it's an interesting one.

The third umpire got it correct to the current laws. (By the way, well done to Nigel Long for sending it upstairs, most umpires would have given it a simple not out on field as it seemed obvious he was home).

The laws changed some time to say once you've made your ground, if you're running naturally, you're considered in your crease. This came about as a result of slow mo cameras showing both feet to be off the ground at the same time while simply running, which clearly isn't meant to be out when the laws of the game were written back in 18-dickety-2. Essentially the laws were "modernised" to keep up with technology and maintain the intent they were first written.

For mine, the interesting one is when a batsman dives to make his crease, and the bat "bounces". Often you now see the third umpire heavily scrutinizing footage to determine when the bounce either started or finished, and where this coincides with the bails being removed. For mine, that's not the intent of the law, and should be reconsidered.

I'd like to see the law along the lines of "once you've made your ground, you're considered in your crease unless you voluntarily* leave your crease" - the current caveat of "avoiding injury" should also remain.

* - this probably isn't the correct word, as a stumping where a player overbalances isn't voluntary, but should be out - but hopefully you get what I mean.

The above would have seen Wagner considered safe, and that's the intent I believe the law was originally written with.

[Bombers4EVA]

Yeah it's an interesting one.

The third umpire got it correct to the current laws. (By the way, well done to Nigel Long for sending it upstairs, most umpires would have given it a simple not out on field as it seemed obvious he was home).

The laws changed some time to say once you've made your ground, if you're running naturally, you're considered in your crease. This came about as a result of slow mo cameras showing both feet to be off the ground at the same time while simply running, which clearly isn't meant to be out when the laws of the game were written back in 18-dickety-2. Essentially the laws were "modernised" to keep up with technology and maintain the intent they were first written.

For mine, the interesting one is when a batsman dives to make his crease, and the bat "bounces". Often you now see the third umpire heavily scrutinizing footage to determine when the bounce either started or finished, and where this coincides with the bails being removed. For mine, that's not the intent of the law, and should be reconsidered.

I'd like to see the law along the lines of "once you've made your ground, you're considered in your crease unless you voluntarily* leave your crease" - the current caveat of "avoiding injury" should also remain.

* - this probably isn't the correct word, as a stumping where a player overbalances isn't voluntary, but should be out - but hopefully you get what I mean.

The above would have seen Wagner considered safe, and that's the intent I believe the law was originally written with.

F#@king amen bro.

[FlyingHigh]

Didn't see this one, but there was a similar one with Malinga from SL in Australia a few years ago.
What I want to know is, is the run awarded, because if not, at what point does a run count?

[GWW]

http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/01/24/10/5 ... nse-hesson

[whufc]

I had thought that the rule had changed to say once you had ground the bat behind the crease it didn't matter what happened after that point in regards to jumping in the air etc.

[bennymacca]

Yeah it's a clear difference between trying to make your ground and standing there with the intent of possibly making an extra run - or turning etc.

Agree with the above

[DOC]

Five metres past the crease with the bat above the ground and a player hops up would be out by this logic. If not attempting another run a run out should not be an option.

After each run a team could break the stumps and check via slo mo if his feet are both in the air? Perhaps when he is changing his shoes with the physio? Maybe ping the ball at him?

I say crap referal by the umpire.

[gadj1976]

As I've said a million times since the third umpire came into play. The "benefit of the doubt" is gone. Otherwise, why refer it, unless you're looking for a reason to give him out?

[daysofourlives]

Five metres past the crease with the bat above the ground and a player hops up would be out by this logic. If not attempting another run a run out should not be an option.

After each run a team could break the stumps and check via slo mo if his feet are both in the air? Perhaps when he is changing his shoes with the physio? Maybe ping the ball at him?

I say crap referal by the umpire.

The rule currently states once the foot has been grounded behind the crease the batsman is safe from any further run out basically. Its wrong, agree with the sentiment here that once you have grounded the bat that should be it

[Grahaml]

Definitely agree with the sentiment that once a batsman has made his ground he is in unless he chooses to leave it.

[Bombers4EVA]

Exactly the point I am trying to make. Once the batter has grounded his bat over the crease then he should be safe. Especially that the bat is part of the arm. Just like the hand is part of the bat when the bowler strikes the batter on the gloves and carries through to the keeper and is given out for caught behind.

[bennymacca]

Exactly the point I am trying to make. Once the batter has grounded his bat over the crease then he should be safe. Especially that the bat is part of the arm. Just like the hand is part of the bat when the bowler strikes the batter on the gloves and carries through to the keeper and is given out for caught behind.

It has to be more than just bat grounded - what if he is turning for another run?

That's why I think the rule about intent should be there. It's clear usually whether someone is trying to make their ground or not