From: craa27@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( Steve Holmes, Computer Centre )
Subject: Re: Javed's attitute and a question.
Reply-To: craa27@ccsun.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Strathclyde University Computer Centre.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:36:19 GMT

In article 6718@latcs1.lat.oz.au, robert@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Robert Van Doorn) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.181913.25824@cc.gatech.edu> pkohli@cc.gatech.edu (Prince Kohli) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan18.100507.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, mdmjs@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>>|> 
>>|> What would happen if the batsman smashed a ball (on the full), into
>>|> the helmet of a player at short-leg and it got stuck between the
>>|> cage on the helmet and the visor on the helmet. Lets say the fielder
>>|> in uninjured and pulls the ball out quickly, and tries to claim a
>>|> catch. My guess is not out, as the ball was lodged and hence "dead ball".
>>|> True?
>>
>>It's definitely not out. Something similar happened recently in RSA,
>>when Manjrekar hit a ball hard onto the short leg's helmet - the ball
>>then looped up and the fielder claimed a catch, which the umpire upheld.
>>Manjrekar protested and the umpire declared him not out. Something
>>like this had apparently also happened in B'bay before.
>>
>About 9 or 10 years ago here in Australia we had a situation in a test match 
>where the batsman bottom edged a cut shot onto the keepers boot (he was up 
>to the stumps for the spinner), the ball popped up and first slip took the 
>catch. The umpire judged this as out. How is this different from hitting the 
>ball into short leg's helmet and another fieldsman completing the catch???
>
>Rob, AAITP. 
>

My only thought is that the laws may wish to distinguish between a close fielder
and an obstacle. Increasing protection lends a greater degree of safety to the 
really close fielder (NB it doesn't guarantee their safety). There is a wish
to discourage the placement of close fielders who are primarily intended to
"field" the ball by passively blocking it with their body. The absurd extreme of
this might be the deploymany of heavily armoured "Defensive walls" remeniscent
of defenders in football guarding a free kick.

Now, when I were a lad (Yawn) andbefore all this helmet nonsense, the close fielder
would usually dive for cover rather than being struck by a full blooded batting
stroke. It might be felt that catches popped up by a new breed of armoured warrior
are contrary to the spirit for two reasons.

1) The player can only stand so close because of armour protection.
2) The flight characteristics of the pop up are modified because the ball
    has struck armour and not mortal flesh. (The fact that the flesh of
     Imran, Hadlee, Trueman etc may be regarded as something greater than
      mortal should not enter into this).

I believe that point 2 is relevant, since the helmet causes an abnormal
deflection of the flight of the ball (in most cases this would put the ball
in the air for a longer period than normal). How might this be solved.

Well a ball striking the helmet might be ruled to have grounded. Would this
lead to a rash of batsmen aiming to score edges off silly point's helmet ??
Would silly point endeavour to score an edge on a likely sixer as it flashes past,
thereby reducing the tally to a four ??

What ruling then for the pop up from your steel capped boots ??
Might the batting side claim that the fielder had used his headgear in
making the catch (N.O. +5 runs) ??

I really don't know what the situation should be, but I do smell a brilliant debate
What does the rest of R.S.C. think ??

Steve.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket