JohnnyG wrote:Westsider wrote:Apparently stepping on your stumps is not out because you hit a 6 and the ball was dead. Just thought I'd let you know that. Obviously Kenilworth wrote the rule book.
G'day mate -i was the Kenilworth wicketkeeper in that game - just wondering which player you were?
I would like to throw in some points regarding that incident:
- as a background: the batsman (Neville Robertson) hit a 6 then walked back onto the stumps
- IMO the correct decision was given in that the umpires did not see what happened (as did most people not see) and therefore any benefit of the doubt went to the batsman
- unfortunately we dont have video replays hence accounts of the incident are limited to each sides (biased) recollection and interpretation of it.
- however, lets assume the umpires did see what happened, then in that case what is the correct interpretation of the law:
- as i understand it, the batsman is not out if he steps on his wicket
after he has completed any action in receiving the ball.
- In this case, there was a distinct delay between playing the shot and then taking a couple of steps back and walking onto the stumps. He did not step on the stumps at the same time, nor immediately after completing the shot.
The delay was quite lengthy.... i was standing by the boundary line and like most others watched the ball sail over the line for 6 and then i turned back and saw the batsman taking steps back towards the stumps and then dislodging the bails. I think that that delay in itself supports the view that the batsman had well and truly completed any action in receiving the ball.
Anyway, you have raised an interesting umpiring question which needs clarification from someone who really knows the rules and their interpretation and anyone with their thoughts is welcome to give their opinions.
