I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
But I know for a FACT that the BALL TRACKING TECHNOLOGY is IMPERFECT,
which Steve Smith complained today.
On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out
of the glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
"
5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
5.6.2.1 the bat itself
5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding
the bat
5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or
being struck by the bat.
"
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and
certainly not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's
other hand holding the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been
instructed that either of those last two constitutes holding the
bat.
But I know for a FACT that the BALL TRACKING TECHNOLOGY is
IMPERFECT, which Steve Smith complained today.
Of course it is. What technology is perfect? If it can be
improved, great. Meanwhile, if it's the best option we have, then
use it, accept it and get on with the game.
On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of
the glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
"
5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
5.6.2.1 the bat itself
5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
struck by the bat.
"
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of those last two constitutes holding the bat.
But I know for a FACT that the BALL TRACKING TECHNOLOGY is IMPERFECT,
which Steve Smith complained today.
Of course it is. What technology is perfect? If it can be improved,
great. Meanwhile, if it's the best option we have, then use it, accept
it and get on with the game.
On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
"
5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
5.6.2.1 the bat itself
5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
struck by the bat.
"
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of those last two constitutes holding the bat.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:29:52 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
Surely if a glove touching a glove holding the bat counts as the first mentioned glove holding the bat then any part of a body (be it arm, torso or leg) that directly or indirectly touches the glove holding the bat could be deemed to be holding the bat?I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
"
5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
5.6.2.1 the bat itself
5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
struck by the bat.
"
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainlyIt gets a bit more complicated when you look at the Appendices
not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of those last two constitutes holding the bat.
"A.2.5 The bat – the following are to be considered as part of the bat:
the whole of the bat itself.
the whole of a glove (or gloves) worn on the hand (or hands) holding the bat.
the hand (or hands) holding the bat, if the batter is not wearing a glove on that hand or on those hands.
A.2.6 Held in batter’s hand - contact between a batter’s hand, or glove worn on his/her hand, and any part of the bat shall constitute the bat being held in that hand."
So A.2.6 means that a hand or glove touching the bat at all counts as holding the bat
But I'm not sure whether 2.6 is referring to the bat as in the piece of wood etc or the bat as defined in 2.5
If the second then a glove touching the other glove touching the bat would count as part of the bat.
But in this case it doesn't really matter, the split screen shots in this video show pretty clearly that he wasn't touching the other glove when it his his bottom hand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSZfbb4-ft8
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 00:22:32 UTC+8, Hamish Laws wrote:In other words any contact of a ball with any part of the batter that is subsequently caught by the keeper (or any other fielder for that matter) should be given out!
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:29:52?PM UTC+10, David North wrote:Surely if a glove touching a glove holding the bat counts as the first mentioned glove holding the bat then any part of a body (be it arm, torso or leg) that directly or indirectly touches the glove holding the bat could be deemed to be holding the bat?
On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:It gets a bit more complicated when you look at the Appendices
I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the >> > > glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
"
5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
5.6.2.1 the bat itself
5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
struck by the bat.
"
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of >> > those last two constitutes holding the bat.
"A.2.5 The bat – the following are to be considered as part of the bat:
the whole of the bat itself.
the whole of a glove (or gloves) worn on the hand (or hands) holding the bat.
the hand (or hands) holding the bat, if the batter is not wearing a glove on that hand or on those hands.
A.2.6 Held in batter’s hand - contact between a batter’s hand, or glove worn on his/her hand, and any part of the bat shall constitute the bat being held in that hand."
So A.2.6 means that a hand or glove touching the bat at all counts as holding the bat
But I'm not sure whether 2.6 is referring to the bat as in the piece of wood etc or the bat as defined in 2.5
If the second then a glove touching the other glove touching the bat would count as part of the bat.
But in this case it doesn't really matter, the split screen shots in this video show pretty clearly that he wasn't touching the other glove when it his his bottom hand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSZfbb4-ft8
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 41:20:14 |
Calls: | 6,708 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,243 |
Messages: | 5,353,838 |