| Today's not been great for English cricket. As I write the South Africans are nine runs off a victory with approximately 31 overs to spare, which suggests an England defeat is becoming likely, and that'll be the end of their World Cup.
Performances on the pitch (there goes another four, five needed) have been pretty useless, but performances by England cricketers off the pitch haven't been top notch either.
Stand up Michael Atherton, former England opening batsman now plying his trade as a commentator for Sky Sports. A couple of overs ago one of the South African batsmen had a great big mow at the English bowling (who wouldn't?), edged it, and wicketkeeper Paul Nixon caught it. We'll pick up Atherton's commentary here:
"And that's out! No, wait, it's a no ball, but neither Paul Nixon nor Graeme Smith have realised!
"Had Nixon realised, he might have had a shy at the stumps!"
Pause.
"Er, not that that would have mattered at all."
Having just completed my umpiring course, I'm well placed to tell you why Athers is making a fool of himself. It was a no ball, which means the batsman obviously can't be caught, but he can still be run out. Alas, not by the wicketkeeper he can't, if nobody else on the fielding side has touched it. If that did happen it'd be a stumping, and you cannot be stumped off a no ball.
So, as Athers belatedly realised, Nixon lobbing the ball at the stumps would have achieved nothing. If you've captained England in a record 54 test matches and you're still not 100 per cent on what can or can't happen from a no ball, when will you be?
And there are the winning runs from Graeme Smith, the hapless Saj Mahmood watching his delivery disappear back behind him to the boundary. Thank you and goodnight. |
Comments so far: 4
It alarms me that I had this EXACT SAME thought.
I also came to the conclusion that, if the same catch had been taken by a fielder, Smith could still not have been run out as he had 'walked' following the catch, not realising that it was a no ball. We in the business know that as "leaving his wicket under a misapprehension" and, under the provisions of Law 27.7, the umpires should (and, I have no doubt, would) have called dead ball to protect him from the run out attempt and recalled him to the wicket.
I'm not a qualified umpire, so I wouldn't know - but does the fact the ball has hit the bat mean that it wouldn't be a stumping, but a run out?
Ken - I'm not totally sure whether it qualifies as a stumping, run out, or what. I suppose it's none of them since they can't actually happen. In a no ball situation, the wicketkeeper cannot throw down the striker's wicket if no other fielder has touched the ball, simple as that. So it's neither a run out nor a stumping. If it's not a no ball then no matter what happens after the keeper catches the ball, on appeal the batsman will be out caught, since caught takes precedence over everything except bowled.
Imagine it's not a no ball, the batsman goes forward for a huge swipe, edges it into the ground at a trickle, and the keeper takes it then removes the bails with the batsman out of his ground. Surely (and I've not got my copy of Tom Smith's Umpiring here to check) that would still be a stumping? I'll have a look later unless Amy J gets there first.
And indeed Amy J makes the very good point that since Smith had walked, he'd have been called back under the misapprehension rule.
I don't have TIME to look that up.
13,330 words and that's all the're going to get from me tonight. Best-case scenario is: I make it to the evening session tomorrow. Worst-case: I finish at 11.30 on Friday and run to exam schools, forgetting key pieces of paper and am failed on a technicality...but I still get to see the rest of the day's play in The Parks.
God, I love cricket.
Leave a comment