Terms of use.Anonymous, offensive, or malicious postings will be deleted. School-related topics only please. If you need to add a "family notice" reply to any of the current messages in that thread, and remember to change the Subject to the name of the newsworthy person.
Not enough details, Arthur, leading to too many assumptions, Terry; however,believing that Arthur would follow the rule of never asking a question to which he did not already know the answer - what is it,Arthur?
I honestly don't know but I think if I were the umpire I would go with the catch but I really would like an honest true answer. I have asked this question of test match special and all the programmes that cover cricket without getting even an acknowledgement. I was once fielding next to Malcolm Doverner, who was bowling, he dropped a return catch and leapt upon the fallen ball grabbed it and ran out the following up batsman. Very quick thinking. It just raised the question in my mind at the time and I have looked for an answer many times.
The umpire should adjudicate if there is no agreement between the two teams as to whether a batsman is out or not - hence many batsmen walk without an appeal having to me made to the umpire.
If the "rabbit" walks and the bowler says he is not out, then the umpire should adjudicate (and give him out).
If the "rabbit" does not walk then both teams have agreed that he is not out so the umpire has no decision to make other than in relation to the appeal for the run out - OUT!
If someone can prove me wrong I'll buy Mike Boothroyd a pint.
You are all wrong ! According to my wife ,being a strong supporter of the Australian team , if the two batsmen in question were batting for England they would be both out. .
Let me see if I have got this right,Arthur. The bowler takes what he believes is a fair catch. He cannot,however,pre-judge the umpires decision on the matter for a number of reasons, so the bowler breaks the wicket of the non receiving batsman to be on the safe side! The bowler still cannot be sure of the decision over the "catch" so appeals the more likely run out. Which as far as I can see must be given.
I still maintain an appeal is an appeal to the umpire - to make a decision on the play he has seen.
No player can dictate to the umpire that he should make a decision on "this" but he can't on "that". If he's seen something, he has to take it into account. Once you appeal, you are in the hands of the umpire and he will decide on what he has seen and should take events into account sequentially.
How many times has a batsman, playing forward to spin bowling, been appealed for LBW and been given out caught for a pad/bat deflection the bowler did not see? The batsman may or may not have been plumb, but, if the umpire disagrees with the LBW appeal, he will still find for the catcher who may not be aware that he caught the ball off the bat. The umpire responds to the appeal and decides on all he has seen.Modern fielders would probably like to make an appeal "in the alternative".However, the game is not like the civil courts where the judge and jury make a decision on the case as pleaded - even if they can see another possibly more successful case, not pleaded.
The umpire decides on all that he has seen - not just an incident selected by a player. If he doesn't, he should - in the interests of "cricket".
Good job the umpire wasn't Arthur. The decision would have been "bad light stopped play".
I think I may have spilled this once previously ....
I remember Jim Wilkinson (ex-Preef) returning to school (after a few years away) as a member of the teaching staff. He was appointed to umpire a Longsdon v Brigg housematch after school at Keighley CC, Lawkholme Lane.
We had a good opening attack - Alec Stone and Alec Bailey.
Alec Stone hit the pads and appealed "Owzat, Jim?"
Instant reply from Jim, "Not out - and less of the bloody 'Jim' !!"
I wanted to refer it. :-)
Hey, Pete Carr (The Ashes originator) - that one Tyke (I will call him Brezhnev) did some stuff in only 2 matches and maybe still more to come in this one.