The first pertains to the ball that dismissed Ravi Bopara. It was a bouncer above head height, which Bopara hit to square leg. Bopara seemed to indicated that he expected it would be called no-ball. My first impression, later confirmed by Michael Atherton on commentary, was that a bouncer above the head would normally be called a wide, but obviously wouldn’t in this case because Bopara hit it. A friend pointed out that perhaps there is a wrinkle in Law 42. I don’t think there is, but I do think his question clarifies the distinction between the bouncer above head height being called a wide and a no-ball. I quote the relevant portions of Law 42 (See 4.24 in this document for the applicable ODI Law) below.
42.4.1 Law 42.6 (a) – The Bowling of Fast Short Pitched Balls
Law 42.6 (a) shall be replaced by the following:
a) A bowler shall be limited to two fast short-pitched deliveries per over.
b) A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.
c) The umpire at the bowlers end shall advise the bowler and the batsman on strike when each fast short pitched delivery has been bowled.
d) In addition, for the purpose of this regulation and subject to Clause 42.4.1 (f) below, a ball that passes above head height of the batsman, that prevents him from being able to hit it with his
bat by means of a normal cricket stroke shall be called a wide.
e) For the avoidance of doubt any fast short pitched delivery that is called a wide under this playing condition shall also count as one of the allowable short pitched deliveries in that over.
f) In the event of a bowler bowling mre than two fast short-pitched deliveries in an over as defined in Clause 42.4.1(b) above, the umpire at the bowlers end shall call and signal
no ball on each occasion. A differential signal shall be used to signify a fast short pitched delivery. The umpire shall call and signal ‘no ball’ and then tap the head with the other hand.
Bopara would have had a point only if the ball that dismissed him had been Ishant’s 3rd bouncer of the over. Since it was not, it could not have been ruled a no-ball. Since it wasn’t the third bouncer, Bopara didn’t have a point, and Atherton was right on commentary.
***********************
The second pertains to Ian Bell’s dismissal. Bell was given out stumped by the TV Umpire Bruce Oxenford. TV replays were inconclusive – at least the ones available to the public were inconclusive. We should keep in mind that the TV Umpire has access to superior video quality compared to the public. There may well have been a frame which clearly showed the two necessary things: (1) the stumps have been broken according to Law 28 and (2) no part of Bell’s body or bat (held in his hand) was grounded behind the batting crease.
Law 28 is interestingly complicated. It described when a wicket can be considered to have been fairly put down.
1. Wicket put down
(a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground,
(i) by the ball,
or (ii) by the striker’s bat if he is holding it or by any part of his bat that he is holding,
or (iii) notwithstanding the provisions of Law 6.8(a), by the striker’s bat in falling if he has let go of it, or by any part of his bat becoming detached,
or (iv) by the striker’s person or by any part of his clothing or equipment becoming detached from his person,
or (v) by a fielder with his hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used.
The wicket is also put down if a fielder strikes or pulls a stump out of the ground in the same manner.
(b) The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal.
So the fielder may break the stumps with his hand or arm as long as the ball is held in the hand or hands so used (which in this case is clearly so, since Dhoni has the ball in his gloves). Using this procedure, Dhoni must achieve one of the following – “a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps) or “a stump is struct out of the ground”.
Going by this, unless Oxenford saw a frame which showed both (1) The right bail (on Bell’s middle and leg stump) completely off the stumps. (2) Bell’s back foot in the air, he was wrong.
The interesting thing is, we have often seen Umpires give run outs when only one end of the bail has been dislodged. The time between 1 end of a bail being dislodged and the entire bail slipping off the stumps can often be enough for the batsman to advance a entire inches. It is also probably enough time for the batsman to lose balance and lift his foot again.
We could easily have a situation (lets call this A) where the batsman was in his ground when the wicketkeeper first made contact with the stumps, but wasn’t by the time the bail was fully off (batsman could be in the process of over-balancing).
We could also have a situation (lets call this B) where the batsman was out of his ground when the wicketkeeper first made contact with the stumps, but was in his ground by the time the bail was fully off.
Clearly, one could also have a situation (lets call this C) in which the bail is fully off the stumps (i.e. it is no longer in contact with the stumps), and at such a moment, the batsman is out of his ground. But if the bail drops back on the stumps, this will not constitute a stumping (or a run out).
Here is what I think happens in practice. When watching a replay, it is clear whether or not the stumps were in fact broken. So we can discount (C) as a problem. It would clearly be not out. But what of (A) and (B)?
Super slow motions brings all these questions to the fore. These are matters which we have never had to consider before, but we now do, since we can see a 1000 data points for every second of the action. In an earlier, simpler time, we could simply observe that the keeper had the bails of “in a flash”. Except that we can now examine that flash in the thousand part sequence that makes it possible.
Bopara’s dismissal and Bell’s are examples in which Cricket has chosen to do away with the judgment of the human umpire by rewriting the law with more specificity. The law for unfair bowling (which is what Bopara thought it was), now specifies how many bouncers are fair. If the other 4 balls in the over are just below shoulder height, the batsman couldn’t complain about it. Whereas, if a bowler bowled an over with 6 balls around shoulder height, he would have heard a word or two from the Umpire in an earlier televised era. In Bell’s case, the Law has not changed, but the reality it was supposed to account for has shifted dramatically with the advent of super slow motion. The Law in this case needs to be rewritten to account for the information available in super-slow-motion.
Nothing happens in a flash anymore. Neither do we like to accept the considered judgment of an expert. Those two black boxes have been opened, perhaps irreversibly so. What’s inside is, inevitably, not as clear as we hoped.
