วีดีโอ

Thanks so much for this! I am a beginner Ump in Barbados and this was extremely useful😀

Does not look LBW as the impact seems to be just outside the line of off stump. I don’t think it should be a Hit Wicket as the striker had completed her action in receiving the delivery(different views welcome). I would say its a Run Out, although the wicket was already broken, wicket keeper managed to uproot a stump with ball in her gloves before the batter made her ground.

There is no doubt that the movement is quite ambiguous and possible of different interpretation. My view is: She is still in the back swing of her stroke & there is no break in the action suggesting otherwise. There is no 'going back into the crease' here. She was inside. I see the breaking of the wicket by the Striker being part of her playing the ball. And, hence, Out, Hit Wicket. This should be viewed in actual speed in order to have the right impression about the 'end of the stroke'. Watching it in only Slo-Mo and, then, deciding might lead to a wrong conclusion because slo-mo enhances and stretches the action and shows a gap where there isn't any.

Not out

Gweebjah

The strike is not out hit wicket she was trying not been stumped so it not out hit the wicket, the non strike is out run out out

The decision would vary from how you look at the incident. Batter may be out hit wicket if you consider the momentum to be her not finishing the shot and she may be not out if you consider otherwise. But one thing is sure that the run out is not possible as the wickets have already been broken.

The hit wicket was too close for me. I would not have dismissed #26. While it's possible another umpire could see her momentum from her initial swing as the cause for her hitting the wicket, it's just as likely that it was the act of avoinding a stumping, which is specifically a not out under 35.2. So for me, if it's ambiguous, I don't give the dismissal. If that's the case (and my partner didn't have a strong opinion otherwise), #52 would be the one dismissed for run-out.

Striker is Not Out Hit wicket, it looked like she was trying to avoid being stumped. The non-striker was out of his ground when the wicket was fairly broken by the WK.

Not out

Not out

Azaan time call for prayer.... Batsmen back to dressing room... 😅

Not out

Out

Not out. He was in his crease but was forced to take evasive action. There should be a law against malicious throwing at the stumps. It can get players hurt.

I m leaning to giving this out because it appears that from the side on replay and front on the batter perhaps was outside their crease in their step forward, so for a moment the batter was outside their crease and the ball was in play as suggested by the actions of the bowler. Equally can appreciate if this has been given not out. Had he perhaps some part of the batters person been behind the popping crease and then he had jumped which caused him to go airborne, in law he would not have been not out as he was in his ground and left it to avoid injury. My answer covers both cases.

Not out

Great interview and he's one of favourite umpire ( panel)

Interesting

Fielders throwing the ball deliberately to get that rough on the ball. The umpire penalized the fielding team after a couple of warnings. In this case, should the ball be changed? (As the penalty is for changing the condition of the ball, which means the condition has now changed). Does the batsmen have any say in this? Thank you.

Very interesting. Thanks for upload to TH-cam.

Thank you all for your answers to this scenario. The laws most relevant to the decision read as follows: LAW 34 HIT THE BALL TWICE 34.1 Out Hit the ball twice 34.1.1 The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any part of his/her person or is struck by his/her bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, the striker wilfully strikes it again with his/her bat or person. 34.3 Ball lawfully struck more than once The striker may, solely in order to guard his/her wicket and before the ball has been touched by a fielder, lawfully strike the ball a second or subsequent time with the bat, or with any part of his/her person other than a hand not holding the bat. LAW 37 OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD 37.1 Out Obstructing the field 37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. 37.2 Not out Obstructing the field A batter shall not be out Obstructing the field if obstruction or distraction is accidental, or obstruction is in order to avoid injury, or in the case of the striker, he/she makes a second or subsequent strike to guard his/her wicket lawfully as in Law 34.3 If you follow the trajectory of the ball closely, after the first strike, the ball appears to spin backwards slightly, towards the wicket. Therefore the correct answer is c. Not Out. The second strike was to guard his wicket.

🙏🕉❤💐

Not out, lawful hit ball twice in guarding his wicket

batsman protecting his stumps - not out

Not out. If the ball was moving toward the stumps at all, which it was in this case, then a case can be made that he was guarding his wicket. It was a fair appeal because this is clearly a decision the umpire needed to make. The answer is C.

Not out

Out. Hit ball twice.

Option C. Not out. The batter was defending his wicket. There was no obstruction or an intent to hit the ball a second time for personal gain.

Thank you all for your answers to this scenario. The law most relevant to this scenario reads as follows: 33.3 Making a catch The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement. In this scenario, the fielder loses control of the ball before he stands up. Therefore the striker is Not-Out.

Out for me..he looks in control of the ball

Not out. Although he has control of the ball in the air, he must have full control when he lets go

Not out

Not out

Out

Out

Tough decision to make. Because there is a point just before the ball popps out of his where it appears he has almost control of the ball and his own movement. Honestly, judging by the body language and what the game expects to sell not out is an easier option to go to. I would go with that. But if this is given out it would make sense as well.

Thank you all for your answers to this scenario. The law most relevant to this scenario reads as follows: 29.1 The wicket is broken The wicket is broken when at least one bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps or one or more stumps is removed from the ground. 29.2.2 The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps. Therefore, in this scenario, the striker is Not-Out.

Gweeebjah! That's incredible

Not out. Neither the bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps (Still on the groove) nor the stump is struck out the of the ground. Incredibly lukcy but I cannot believe that honestly 😅

Very very nice lecture

like seriously if the ball hit those gears like that and umpire cant see it we are in trouble

Interesting 🤔

Very good

Excellent drill to do. Never thought of that. Thanks, WPCUA, for the videos.🙏🏽

Thank you all for your answers to this scenario. The laws most relevant to this scenario read as follows: LAW 34 HIT THE BALL TWICE 34.1 Out Hit the ball twice 34.1.1 The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any part of his/her person or is struck by his/her bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, the striker wilfully strikes it again with his/her bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, except for the sole purpose of guarding his/her wicket. LAW 37 OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD 37.1 Out Obstructing the field 37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. Marnus Labuschagne's actions meet the requirements for both the dismissals listed above. Therefore, technically the correct answers are a. Out Hit The Ball Twice and b. Out Obstructing The Field. So why did the umpires in this match not give Marnus Labuschagne out? It is clear to hear at 00:17 that there was an appeal. Even though neither law mentions that there needs to be a likelihood of the batter being run-out or caught if it wasn't for the unlawful second strike or the obstruction, it is reasonable for the umpires to consider the likelihood of a run-out or caught dismissal when answering a Hit The Ball Twice and / or Obstructing the Field appeal.

For TH-cam purposes, please mic the instructor. Thank you for the content.

Can umipreq eligible for india to umpiring?

It fits both OTF and HTBT. As per the clarification given by MCC this will be termed as OTF.

B