Assume this scenario: Steve Waugh is batting on 99, the striker. Langer is the non-striker batting on 55. Hoggard bowls, Waugh hooks, mistimes and the ball goes high into the air. the wicketkeeper hovers under the ball. Langer and Waugh cross over for the single. Just as the keeper is going to grasp the ball, Langer (Waugh's #1 sycophant) delibrately pushes the keeper so that the catch is not taken. Of course, Langer is ruled out for obstructing the field.
The problems now: Shouldn't Waugh be given out too? Should the single be allowed? Isn't Waugh getting a century he does not deserve? Isn't the wicketkeeper robbed off a catch? Isn't the bowler denied a wicket he deserves to have?
And to compund the problem further, what if it was a one-run-to-win situation of the last ball of an ODI?
2006-11-01 20:50:14 · 11 answers · asked by pressurekooker 4 in Sports ➔ Cricket
Just to clarify: the single was completed when langer obstructed. We all know what the rules say. But should the rules be?
2006-11-01 21:12:59 · update #1
Law 37 Says: If either batsman is out 'obstructing the field', any runs completed before the offence, together with any penalty extras and the penalty for a No ball or Wide are still scored, except when the offence stopped a catch being caught when only penalties are still scored.
The bowler does not get credit for the wicket.
And what if the catch is taken? Langer has "tried to willfully obstruct", but the keeper has still managed to take the catch.
2006-11-01 23:53:44 · update #2
huh? this is very straight forward. Langer would be given out. Waugh was never caught so he wouldnt be. The single was never completed so waugh would still be on 99. He would simply be at the non bowlers end for the next ball.
There is no issue here at all.
2006-11-01 20:59:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, first of all Langer should be given out because of obstructing the field. The singlle was never completed so Waugh remains on 99. The second thing is that both batsmen can't be given out at the same time.
These situations too are part of the game & if the situtation gets out of hand expect the umpires & the match referee to play their part.
If it was a one-run-to-win situation of the last bowl of an ODI then Australia would lose & Waugh would remain on 99.
2006-11-02 05:30:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
here is a straight answer and u don't need to think anything else-
langer will be given out for obstructing wicket keepers way to catch the ball and waugh will be declared not out but will remainon 99 at the non-strikers end.
2006-11-02 07:18:45 · answer #3 · answered by aki 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is the match in England? This is what happens: The umpire get 2gether to talk about it and stand to one side then the wicketkeeper gets to langer but langer hits him with the bat. The whole english team gets whacked by the batsman but then the crowd turns loose and gets the 2 batsman. The rest of the Australian team is banned 4 life. BUT bcoz the australians get away with anything and cheating is their motto the umpires would most probably award them the match
2006-11-02 09:52:04 · answer #4 · answered by thatniceguy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your point is well taken not off. But the fact remains that the catch was not taken and the batsman has completed the run. As long as the catch is not completed the batsman who hit the ball cannot be ruled out whatever the reason for completing the catch. Since the catch could not be completed due to obstructing the player, the batsman who obstructed has been given out, which is considered fair.
2006-11-02 05:19:33 · answer #5 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In this case the umpires and the match referee,mainly will be
the key men .Match Referee ,especially if this is a
'one-run-to-win situation of the last ball of an ODI' situation.
Or it may happen that both teams (captains) will come to a solution to solve this problem .A solution both agree upon. Of course with the
permission of the umpires,match referees and ICC officials.
SA and England had done a similar thing in a Test match
the scenario was different(there was no foul play) on field,they did it (revised the target) just to get a result.England won.
best regards,
2006-11-02 06:24:18 · answer #6 · answered by asdf 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are correct, but Langer should be given out because of disrupting the field of play therefore Waugh would be at the non-strikers end and still on 99
2006-11-02 05:15:16 · answer #7 · answered by Nicky 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, for sure Langer should be given out then and there only... (It would be treated as a Run Out)
But hence the Catch was not taken by any fielder (I assume it was a drop). Would should have been remain at Bowelrs end.
S
2006-11-02 06:15:24 · answer #8 · answered by Santosh Kumar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're all wrong.
Neither batsman would be given out because they're both australian and we're the best cricketing nation in the world. We can't be given out becuase Daryl Hair would be the umpire and he would never make a bad call (Hello Pakistan).
By the way....great question.
2006-11-02 07:16:46 · answer #9 · answered by TonyB 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
tough question...would never happen though.
Steve Waugh would play such an awesome cover drive Hoggard would cry and go home.
PS. Australia is the best cricketing nation in the world, hack it or hate it, it's still true!!
2006-11-02 11:46:26 · answer #10 · answered by fifty_swift_kicks 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋