Clarification of the stumping rule.

[EldersUniSA]

I was just thinking about the stumping rule the other day and I came across a scenario which I couldn't definitively say was out or not by reading the rules.
Scenario
Given that you cannot be stumped off a no ball, but you can be ran out and the difference between the two is determined by whether the striker is attempting a run or not. What happens if the non striker attempts a run but the striker does not (on a no ball where the striker is out of his crease and the wicketkeeper takes off the bails at the strikers end)?

[smac]

Once either batsman attempts to run, they are both deemed to be running, I believe.

Will check the book later and confirm.

[EldersUniSA]

Yes I thought the same, but from the way I read it from the MCC It doesn't seem to be covered. Maybe you can lawyer it for me.

[dedja]

my 2c ...

I'd say not out ... without the no ball the striker would have been stumped.

With a no-ball, regardless of actions of the non-striker, the striker isn't attempting a run.

The only way I can see it being out is if the batsmen cross ... i.e.. the non-striker has made it to the striker's end, past the striker but has not made his ground. Or the non-striker is run out at his end.

[EldersUniSA]

This example may answer the question:
http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/as ... 27,AR.html

The example is different in that the striker attempts a run on a no ball but is then turned back by the non striker and is therefore runout. But the way they define why he is out puts all the emphasis on what the strikers intention. Seems to me it would be not out.

Crazy scenario 1.
Bowler bowls a no ball, keeper is back, wicket keeper throws down strikers end stumps while striker is out of crease not attempting run, mean while non-striker attempts run and ball goes for 4 overthrows... What happens here?

Crazier scenario 2:
Crazy scenario 1 occurs except non striker crosses striker.

Stupid:
Crazy scenario 1 + Crazier scenario 2 occurs (but not necessarily going for overthrows) except as well as hitting the strikers stumps the ball also hits the non-strikers stump. Question who is out?

[FlyingHigh]

my 2c ...

I'd say not out ... without the no ball the striker would have been stumped.

With a no-ball, regardless of actions of the non-striker, the striker isn't attempting a run.

The only way I can see it being out is if the batsmen cross ... i.e.. the non-striker has made it to the striker's end, past the striker but has not made his ground. Or the non-striker is run out at his end.

Was thinking that way too Dedja, but then the two batsmen could meet in the middle of the wicket and not cross, regardless of whether the ball hits the stumps or not, and then technically start their "run".
I would think the umpires would have to make a judgement call on whether they thought the striker had genuinely began to attempt a run.

[dedja]

sure, but if they meet in the middle then the striker clearly has attempted to run so would be fair game ...

[FlyingHigh]

No worries dedja, can see that I misinterpreted/twisted the original scenario and your post. Although, they could still meet at the strikers end and deliberately not cross, but this is risky as a certain runout at the bowlers end if the ball misses the stumps.

I wonder if a stumping intrinsically linked with the playing of the shot and so when the shot is deemed to be completed the disimissal becomes a runout? For instance, a keeper at the stumps fumbles the ball while still standing over the stumps, recovers and takes the bails, would be deemed as a stumping. If the ball bobbled away to leg slip a couple of metres and he back-flipped it onto the stumps, with the striker not attempting a run would this be a stumping or run out?

[heater31]

Were the batsmen attempting a run at the time?

My definition of an attempt is once the shot is completed and the batsmen moves forward from his crease towards the non strikers end.

If they haven't moved or moving towards their own end not attempting a run and therefore stumping is in play.

[EldersUniSA]

Were the batsmen attempting a run at the time?

That is where the ambiguity exists. The rule doesn't talk about the batsmen only the striker.