Re: A Run Out scenario
- From: "Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Apr 2007 05:20:26 -0700
On Apr 13, 3:57 pm, "Gavin Cawley" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 12:47 pm, "Ramapriya D" <ramapriy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the clause would be much better if the word "directly" were
deleted. I wonder if the lawmakers had a particular reason for
"directly", or whether they just didn't consider that it could happen
some other way. Oslear only suggests that it should be "either
wicket" as it would be unfair for the non-striker to be run out in
this manner, which seems fair enough to me.
It would seem inconsistent and an injustice to the striker (suggesting
that the situation had not beed adequately considered in drafting the
laws).
The more improbable a situation, the more loose the laws appear, and
you can't really blame the lawmakers. It's the laws of a game, after
all!
Imagine a batsman offering his pad to a quickie with no intention of
playing a shot and the ball steepling off the pad and later the bat
that's held above the head. If the two batters manage (nearly
impossible, of course) to complete a run before a catch is finally
held, you'd as ump have to call Dead Ball and disallow the appeal for
a catch ;)
Ramapriya
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Run Out scenario
- From: Gavin Cawley
- Re: A Run Out scenario
- References:
- A Run Out scenario
- From: Ramapriya D
- Re: A Run Out scenario
- From: Gavin Cawley
- Re: A Run Out scenario
- From: Ramapriya D
- Re: A Run Out scenario
- From: Gavin Cawley
- A Run Out scenario
- Prev by Date: Re: Key admits ball tampering !!
- Next by Date: Re: Ramprakash trashes Fletcher
- Previous by thread: Re: A Run Out scenario
- Next by thread: Re: A Run Out scenario
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|