The Somerset-Surrey Cricket Row

[sten_super]

I take issue with two things around the incident.

1) Karthik is very clearly in his delivery stride. He plants his front foot, let alone his back foot. I've got no idea why the umpire allowed it - it should have been a dead ball straight away, and the bowler warned for not delivering the ball.

2) I don't go in for this whole 'backing up is allowed' philosophy. Batsmen would not do it (at the very least it would be trained out of them) if there was not some advantage to be gained from it. A large portion of the game of cricket is based on risk vs reward, and I think that the risk of dismissal should be enforced in these situations.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If I was Batty I'd be livid with Kartik. Yes, Barrow was technically out according to the umpire, but there's a massive downside to taking a wicket in this manner. Surrey are already unpopular because they play Pietersen and now this. I don't think taking one wicket is worth the whole heap of shit that has befallen Surrey.

 

[ezzoud]

If I was Batty I'd be livid with Kartik.

If he was that livid he could have withdrawn the appeal when the umpire asked if it he wanted to uphold it.

 

[keaton]

Surrey are already unpopular because they play Pietersen and now this. .

Surrey have been unpopular for decades. Why would they be less popular because they play Pietersen?

 

[Basil Fawlty]

It is a fair dismissal in the eyes of Cricket Law and he did get warned for it earlier on. So I don't see why the Somerset fans were booing Surrey for it?

 

[CHAPPERS]

If he was that livid he could have withdrawn the appeal when the umpire asked if it he wanted to uphold it.

3 times.

 

[PHCgull]

It is a fair dismissal in the eyes of Cricket Law and he did get warned for it earlier on. So I don't see why the Somerset fans were booing Surrey for it?

Its only "fair" becuase the umpire gives it out. But the umpire is wrong to do so.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Its only "fair" becuase the umpire gives it out. But the umpire is wrong to do so.

The Umpire had no other option to give it out. He was previously warned for backing up, before the Bowler didn't get through his action. So he did it again and got punished for it, its happened before in years gone by and the Law has never been mended.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

The Umpire had no other option to give it out. He was previously warned for backing up, before the Bowler didn't get through his action. So he did it again and got punished for it, its happened before in years gone by and the Law has never been mended.

Quite definitely incorrect.
The "bowler has entered his delivery stride" was added in the code 2000 Laws update I believe - to help make the judgement clearer.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Surrey have been unpopular for decades. Why would they be less popular because they play Pietersen?

Unpopular with Sussex fans for sure, but unpopular with cricket fans in general?

 

[PHCgull]

The Umpire had no other option to give it out. He was previously warned for backing up, before the Bowler didn't get through his action. So he did it again and got punished for it, its happened before in years gone by and the Law has never been mended.

wrong Im afraid. the law HAS changed recently. If you have started your delivery stride you cannot do this, regardless of how many warnings have been dished out.


EDIT: nevertheless it should be noted that if the on field umpire says its fair to chuck it underarm and gives you out bat-before-wicket, then that also is a "fair" dismissal.

 

[Triggaaar]

Totally fair dismissal, the bowler had already warned the batsman once about leaving his crease.

Sorry, I don't go for "Spirit of the game"

I partly agree. He was warned, which is the key, but he went about the actual dismissal in a slightly sly way which I thought was wrong. Stupid batsman should have paid attention though. Questionable, yes, but into disrepute - no way.

What makes batsmen think it's ok to steal a yard every ball?

 

[Mackenzie]

I wouldn't do that in my village cricket team, let alone a first class match. Gareth Batty has always been like that though. The spinner in my team has stopped and threatened to whip off the bails when the opposition are taking the piss backing up, he's similarly short and ginger like Batty, but he understands the spirit of the game.

 

[Highamgull]

As I suspected and intimated in my original post that the ICC have a different slant on this. Indeed they do and the umpire would appear to have been right in allowing the appeal, etc. This is a summary of the ICC's regulation for this season:-

' Running out the non-striker - ICC playing condition is adopted. This
allows the non-striker to be run out by the bowler at any point "before
releasing the ball and provided the bowler has not completed his usual
delivery swing"

This interpretation allows Kartik to do what he did. The rest of us will have to stick with the Laws of Cricket as they stand and it is still not within the Spirit of Cricket!!