Cricket rules question.

[Seafront Plodder]

Yes I know it's the dullest game ever invented. But..... :o

Can a batsman be out stumped, from a wide delivery?

[Sweder]

My guess would be yes - he can be caught chasing a wide, so in that basis why not? Cricket, SP? You having an MLC?

[Seafront Plodder]

err...well yes but what's that got to do with the question? :o

Watching Sky's coverage of the US Open tennis gives you ample opportunity to channel-hop during the numerous ad breaks since they occur each time players change ends.:mad:

During one such hop I was unlucky enough to land on a cricket match just in time to watch a batsman shuffling down the wicket to attempt to sweep a delivery from a spinner, which the umpire had signalled wide. He made a hash of it and was stumped.

I always thought a wide was a 'dead ball'.

Perhaps I ought to stick to tennis.:o

[MickCollins]

Technically it depends on whether the ball's been tampered with first, whether the fielding side are actually on the pitch or hiding out in the dressing room, and whether the umpire has requested half a million quid in used notes to be left for him behind the sight screen at the pavillion end in order to help sort out the issue.

After that, you have to leave the crowd in the dark about what the decision's going to be for about another hour and a half, before deciding it's now literally, and not just metaphorically, too dark to continue. Then you have to explain why shining the ball on your trousers so hard it leaves a red streak isn't 'tampering' with it, but scratching it with your fingernail is. Once you've got past those steps, it's time for lunch.

After lunch, you can decide whether the ball was 'bowled' or 'chucked'. While you're looking for that, glancing up at the bowler's arm, you must also decide whether or not he stepped over the line with his foot, some eight feet away, in order to conclude whether it's a no ball or not, and so whether the whole thing counts in any event. If it doesn't, in other words, if the bowler transgressed, then it's a dead ball.

Unless, of course, it's been tampered with, in which case the dead ball becomes a live, if wounded, ball, and debate continues for the next three months, while everyone tries to blame everyone else. Ideally, the whole thing should be commented upon by Ian Botham, who failed to sue Imran Khan over allegations relating to ball tampering, and Mike Atherton, who was once fined for having half a pound of soil in his pockets, which he rubbed onto the ball, technically 'tampering' with it. Of course, if he'd just made one side shiny, that would have been OK, but he was making one side dull, which is clearly not on.

Confused? Trust me, you will be.

Next week - How umpires decide on chucking, overstepping, running on the pitch and LBW, given that the decisions required mean looking at four different places and making four different decisions within two tenths of a second. Something which scientists have long known is physically impossible... :-)

[Nigel]

Thanks very much, Mick. That's cleared the matter up, quite succinctly.

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

I thought the whole cricket rules thing was pretty straight forward really - one side goes in until they're all out, whereupon they go in and the side that was out goes in. After five days you call it a draw and go to the pub.

As for the "can you be stumped off a wide ball?" question, well yes obviously you can be. Just look at everyone here - we're all stumped by the question, so why should Trescothick, Strauss et al be any different?

The real question is this: who's the imposter posing as Seafront Plodder? The real SP would never feign an interest in God's greatest game... clearly there is foul play afoot, and it has nothing to do with Pakistan...

I hope.