Official, confirmed, verified "You are the umpire" thread

[El Loco]

You are officiating in a Test match. The striker plays an on drive, which the bowler attempts to field in his follow through. The batsmen attempt a run, but with the bowler out of place, both him and the striker collide and crash heads. Both fall to the ground. Another fielder runs in and whips the bails off at the non-striker's end and appeals. As the striker has currently not made his ground at the bowling end (which he was running to), you give it out.

But the fielding captain, seeing what has happened, withdraws the appeal from his teammate. Everyone runs to the two downed men, and the fielder apologises to you, saying that the appeal was done in the heat of the moment and he did not realise that the players were seriously hurt. You are satisfied that it is genuine, and so you accept the withdrawal of the appeal. However, there are two hurt players in mid-pitch.

Doctors and physios and team management swarm the field. Things seem serious. Both men are carted away. The batsman has to retire hurt. The bowler is also off for the time being.

Time passes.

Three minutes have gone since the hurt batsman has been off the field and the batting team has yet to send a new batsman in. The fielding captain asks, more of a polite query than anything else..."Well, how's that?"

What do you do now?

Yeah three minutes is the rule for being timed out.
Never happened in a high-profile game but I just read that there was a test match in 2007 between South Africa and India where Tendulkar couldn't be sent in to bat as he was substituted off as a fielder in the previous innings and in the next innings India had lost two wickets in quick succession, however not enough time had elapsed for him to be eligible to enter the field of play again. After a six-minute delay Ganguly was eventually sent out instead but Graeme Smith did not appeal against it although in theory he could have.

 

[qpeedore]

Ah, but the question was what do YOU do?

Timed out is a weird thing. First of all, after three minutes have passed, the two standing umpires must call "time" (ie an official break in play) and confer. They then have to meet with the batting captain in order to determine the reason for the lack of a batsman. According to the Laws, a new batsman must be ready to take guard, or if he is the non-striker, must be ready for his partner to face the next delivery, within three minutes. There are only two conclusions to be made after meeting with the batting captain: either he refuses to play on, or he wishes play to continue.

1. If the batting captain refuses to send further players in to bat and will not play on for whatever reason, the match is to be awarded to the fielding team. It is NOT a conceded match, regardless of what the captain says. The match will be awarded. (See, sometimes conceding defeat looks nicer, but in this case, even if the captain is willing to concede, tough luck.)

2. If the batting captain is willing to play on, the reason for the delay of an incoming batsman has to be ascertained. An agreed-upon timeframe for a new batsman to satisfy one of the criteria above for being out in the middle will be confirmed. Penalty runs can be awarded, even. In THIS scenario, there was an appeal before time was called. The batting captain will be informed that under the Laws, a batsman has to be out.

BUT...here's the weird thing. Since no new batsman was ever on the field of play to be appealed against, and a batting order can be swapped around, the out batsman doesn't have to be a good one. The batting captain can say he was planning on sending in his number 11 next, so that's the guy who's timed out. And it's perfectly legal.

(EDIT: SEE - https://web.archive.org/web/20120206223045/http://www.lords.org/data/files/law_31_qanda-9679.pdf)

In that game, Loco, once Ganguly even stepped onto the field of play then Smith could have appealed and it would have been Ganguly out because he actually was on the field to be given out. In my scenario there was no batsman on the field to be given out.

Either way, it doesn't affect the retired hurt batsman. He has never been given out, and is free to resume his innings when fit and at the fall of a wicket.

 

[Willoughby63]

I remember reading something similar to this that happened in the early 1900s, where the batting team were 9 down needing 2 to win, but with a seriously injured no. 11. The batsman had to crawl onto the pitch, but it took him so long that the umpire had to give him timed out.

 

[qpeedore]

Guys, I'm not the only one who can post scenarios here, you're actively encouraged by me to post or ask anything.

This week's post is a flashback to Curtly Ambrose and Dean Jones. To set up the scenario, in real life, Jones asked the umpire if he could have Ambrose remove the sweatbands around his wrists. Jones' reasoning was that the bands were white and the ball was also white, and so it was unfair and a distraction. Ambrose was not happy. No other batsman had ever asked that of him, and he thought it was a bit of an insult. But he reluctantly removed it, and then proceeded to destroy Australia. Even David Boon said, "Yeah, thanks Deano." Watch the story via the below link. Jones was out to the slowest ball I've ever seen Ambrose bowl, and it was just a take-that to him.

Now, okay, you've got a bowler running in after having removed his wristband. The scenario follows.

You are umpiring in an ODI game, after something similar to the above has occurred. The bowler runs in, but does not let go of the ball. He walks right up to the batsman, says a few (hopefully friendly) words, and then walks up to you, saying that the batsman's arm guard is distracting him from the stumps. The arm guard, is indeed well-used and about the colour of the stumps and also there is a piece of electrical tape near the top that does reflect the sun back at your eyes, so you assume that the bowler may have experienced something similar.

The six foot eight inch bowler is standing next to you, having made only the above statement but nothing more.

Can you do anything?

Whatever happens to the armband, the bowler then complains that the batsman's gold chain is too distracting. What now?

(Reminds me of a time that I've only read about, but still funny. One of the awesome foursome of the West Indies had to be taken out of the attack because in his runup the cross on his gold chain bounced so much it hit him in the eye.)

 

[CerealKiller]

Well, just ask him to hide the chain under his shirt, if possible, and put on an arm guard that isn’t distracting.

 

[qpeedore]

That is correct, but you will have to take into account that the bowler is trying to get back at the batsman. Things can become nasty. As an umpire you have to be aware of the situation and the potential outcomes. I'd be more strict in what I consider to be dangerous bowling after the bowler has made that request.

The purpose of this question was to see how your mindset will change on field, in a potentially hostile situation.

Ambrose, thankfully, only bowled a few fast deliveries, picking up some wickets, before he bowled a ball to Jones that, had he continued his follow through, he might have overtaken the ball in midpitch.

 

[qpeedore]

This week, I'm straying from the standard format. I'm not going to post a scenario and ask for responses. Instead, I'll post a definition and ask for ways to fulfill it.

A hat trick is defined as three wickets in three consecutive balls bowled.

Tell me the most unusual hat tricks you can think up.

 

[qpeedore]

(POST MAY BE MERGED)

Earlier on in this thread, I made a post referencing racism. I humbly ask for forgiveness about that post, and I do NOT wish for anyone reading to think that it was anything to do with the current situation today. If the mods wish, I'll delete that post. But the mods need to contact me via PM and allow me the option to delete the post for myself.

 

[Yash.]

This week, I'm straying from the standard format. I'm not going to post a scenario and ask for responses. Instead, I'll post a definition and ask for ways to fulfill it.

A hat trick is defined as three wickets in three consecutive balls bowled.

Tell me the most unusual hat tricks you can think up.

There has been a hattrick with three balls in three different overs.

 

[qpeedore]

What about over three different days? Or three different matches? And no, taking the final wicket each time doesn't count...I'll give a maximum of once for the final wicket to be taken.

It hasn't happened yet, but it could. Get creative.

(EDIT: Everything that follows is new, just didn't want to double post or merge posts)

You are at the striker's end in a Test match in the current era of cricket. The offspinner bowls, and the batsman sees a juicy full toss. He winds up and connects with the ball. Less than half a second later, that ball connects with something else, that being the helmet worn by forward short leg. The fielder collapses as everyone runs to him. You quickly signal dead ball and join the ever-growing crowd surrounding the downed player.

The team physio runs out and the fielder is soon helped off of the playing area, replaced by the 12th man. Some rearranging of the fielders in their respective positions are needed, but there is barely any time lost and play soon resumes.

An hour later and between overs, you get a message over your headset from that the fielder has not responded well to the concussion tests and needs to be taken out of play for at least two days.

You and the match referee have a discussion. What about?

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

You and the match referee have a discussion. What about?

It could be about a concussion replacement.

 

[qpeedore]

It could be about a concussion replacement.

Could? Or would?

Have you seen a fielder concussion replacement happen? Does the ICC allow this?

Details, man, details.

 

[Ed Smith]

So you'd be talking to the match referee about the subs eligibility, if he was like for like or could bowl ect

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

The rule states that in case of any on-field concussion a replacement is allowed. So it doesn't matter whether the injury occurred during batting or when fielding. A concussion replacement is a like for like replacement and the new player replaces the injured player for the rest of the match. The scenario over here is that the injured player is taken out of the match for atleast 2 days and the side that was fielding will most probably bat in between that period and if there isn't any replacement made then it may result in that side being deprived of a player which I believe could prove to be unfair. And remember the fielder can be a bowler as well and in that case your substitute won't be allowed to bowl but a concussion replacement can be allowed to do that. So the discussion is about whether the side should be allowed a replacement or not.

 

[qpeedore]

@Nilay_60...that is one of the absolute best answers I've ever had to this entire thread.

You not only answered but you explained, and you are 100% correct.

EDIT: @DalePlaysCricket you got it, but didn't quite explain it.

(My hat trick question is still open though!)