Talk:Stump (cricket)

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Stumping edited.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The article currently states " A batsman may be out stumped off a no ball", but Law 24.15 of cricket clearly state that a batsman *cannot* be out, stumped off a no ball. http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html 
Thedoctor98 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has had any objections to the change, I'll make the edit. Thedoctor98 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stumped off a no-ball 

message: In a recent (2013/14) match -- SA vs Aus? -- a batsman was out of his ground, and missed the ball (not a wide) which was caught by a fielder who put down the wicket exactly as a wicket keeper would (and noting that modern keepers go so far back that they're mingling with the slips). Even though he was clearly not attempting a run (bye) he was dismissed  "run out". Is that worth an entry in the article? Alanf777 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stumped vs Run Out 

message: I was researching a Regency novel and learned that middle stump was not required at that time, not even in the original rules. How does it affect play if there's no middle stump? From a dumb Yank.
71.178.191.144 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   middle stump effect on play 

message: A number of international cricketers have criticized the Zing Bails incidents, so that in itself is notable: https://au.sports.yahoo.com/cricket-world-cup-controversy-bails-farce-231556901.html. The fact that the ICC had to publicly defend their usage in the World Cup is also notable: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-world-cup-zing-bails-becoming-a-weighty-issue-but-they-wont-be-changed-wsvl3k2pv . The manufacturer has also commented saying they feel the "recent cluster" is an "unusual spate" and will be reviewed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/06/11/manufacturers-zing-bails-left-surprised-world-cup-problems-will/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekApple123 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zing bails controversy 

message: …is both ungrammatical and incorrect. (Test match stats, for example, suggest that more than 55% of batters are out caught, and LBW accounts for another 15%. Thus only 30% is left for all the other ways of going out.)
Also, hit wicket is a mode  of dismissal that involves dislodging a bail or uprooting a stump. It’s not just bowled+stumped+run out that are stump-related dismissals. 86.136.1.98 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The statement that “majority of dismissals involve stumps”…