| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bailbreaker

Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 973
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: helmet |
|
|
this happened on saturady at burrough green.
the wicket keeper placed his helmet ON THE BOUNDARY LINE when he was standing back to the bowler.
question: if the ball had hit said helmet without touching the ground how may runs would we have scored.
also has anyone played in a match when the ball was changed soooooo early. ( well done to the fishermen, for getting the ball back from the shark infested lake)
_________________ AMBER ARMY BOUNCE BOUNCE_____ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Simon

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 243 Location: Bar Hill
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would say five runs as the ball would have impacted the helmet before it landed on or beyond the boundary |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rushy

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 241
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i would say 11, 5 for the hitting of the helmet and 6 more for the distance cleared in the air to hit the helmet. Very accurate play deserves that amount of runs _________________ A Dot Ball is a Happy Ball |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Simon

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 243 Location: Bar Hill
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As the helmet was behind the wicket keeper the only shot that is going to hit it on the full is a top edge. Hard to judge those accurately (unless you are Martin of course) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rushy

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 241
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
barry's statement is that the helmet is on the boundary line. There is no indication as to the positioning of said helmet with respect to the wicket, so it is not necessarily a top edge that will find its way there _________________ A Dot Ball is a Happy Ball |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Simon

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 243 Location: Bar Hill
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Law 41 Section 3 would seem to apply |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jun 2006 Posts: 370
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
i agree law 41 section 3... spot on...
(what is law 42 section 3???) _________________ Diablo is dead...long live CHAOS!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Simon

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 243 Location: Bar Hill
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Law 42 Section 3 covers ball tampering!
However Law 41 Section 3 says :-
Protective helmets, when not not in use by fielders, shall only be placed, if above the surface, on the ground behind the wicket-keeper and in line with both sets of stumps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bailbreaker

Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 973
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if the said helmet was placed excatly "in line with the stumps".
does this mean we should have got "extra " penalty runs?
the umpiring at this level tsk! tsk! _________________ AMBER ARMY BOUNCE BOUNCE_____ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|