Thank you all for your answers to this scenario. The law most relevant to the decision reads as follows: 38.2.1 A batter is not out Run out if 38.2.1.1 He/She has been within his/her ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is fairly broken. The TV umpire in this scenario gave the batter out, presumably because he didn't think the batter left the crease to avoid injury. Without being asked to do so, the captain of the fielding side withdrew the appeal, and the batter was recalled to continue his innings. The spirit of cricket prevailed above the law. The wicket-keeper backing into the batter could easily have resulted in an injury to the batter, especially since the wicket-keeper was watching the ball, which eventually hit him after deflecting from the stumps. To be safe, the batter moved away from the wicket keeper, and in doing so, out of his crease. There is no other reason that the better left the crease, except to avoid injury. Therefore, the correct answer is c. Not Out. Batter was in his ground before the wicket was put down and left it to avoid injury.
C. Not out for me. The batter was within his ground first. Unfortunately, the wicket keeper actions although seeming not deliberate, caused the batter to leave their ground and for the batter not be accidently pushed by the wicket keeper probably avoiding injury. For me its not a deliberate obstruction by the wicket keeper as he kept his eyes on the ball rather than having any awareness where the batter was. I am happy to respect the view if this was given out.
It isn't clear to me what Krishnendu Pal decided, but if it were me, I would have said not out. Although Law 30.1.2 normally covers a batter whose legs come up when running into his ground, the batter in this case clearly grounded himself within his ground before being subsequently forced out not of his own volition. With the importance of intentionality in the spirit of the game, I might rely on this law if I needed to cite one instead of the "avoiding injury" one, for good or ill.
Thank you all for your answers to this scenario. The law most relevant to the decision reads as follows:
38.2.1 A batter is not out Run out if
38.2.1.1 He/She has been within his/her ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is fairly broken.
The TV umpire in this scenario gave the batter out, presumably because he didn't think the batter left the crease to avoid injury. Without being asked to do so, the captain of the fielding side withdrew the appeal, and the batter was recalled to continue his innings. The spirit of cricket prevailed above the law.
The wicket-keeper backing into the batter could easily have resulted in an injury to the batter, especially since the wicket-keeper was watching the ball, which eventually hit him after deflecting from the stumps. To be safe, the batter moved away from the wicket keeper, and in doing so, out of his crease. There is no other reason that the better left the crease, except to avoid injury.
Therefore, the correct answer is c. Not Out. Batter was in his ground before the wicket was put down and left it to avoid injury.
Ig not out.. Correct me
Not Out. Batter was in his ground before the wicket was put down and left it to avoid injury
C. Not out for me. The batter was within his ground first. Unfortunately, the wicket keeper actions although seeming not deliberate, caused the batter to leave their ground and for the batter not be accidently pushed by the wicket keeper probably avoiding injury. For me its not a deliberate obstruction by the wicket keeper as he kept his eyes on the ball rather than having any awareness where the batter was.
I am happy to respect the view if this was given out.
It isn't clear to me what Krishnendu Pal decided, but if it were me, I would have said not out. Although Law 30.1.2 normally covers a batter whose legs come up when running into his ground, the batter in this case clearly grounded himself within his ground before being subsequently forced out not of his own volition. With the importance of intentionality in the spirit of the game, I might rely on this law if I needed to cite one instead of the "avoiding injury" one, for good or ill.