|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Games||Mobile|
If the ball ricochets off the stumps after an attempted run-out, why should it benefit the batsman?
March 16, 2013
Cricket gets bums on the seats, it would be fair to say, because fans, in general, want to see runs being scored, and over the years the lawmakers have erred on the side of awarding extra runs. Thus the leg-bye, the overthrow, the extra for wide, and now the free hit off the no-ball. You are unlikely to ever see a batsman being penalised a run for playing a poor shot.
The idea behind the overthrow is fathomable, and even digestible. If there was no penalty, it would carry the danger of fielders taking to throwing the ball randomly and indiscreetly and slowing the game down. But I would make two changes to the law.
I'd stop awarding the runs to the batsman. Let him earn the runs that he has already run, or the ones he was in the process of running when the throw was made, but the ones that result from overthrows should simply be treated as extras, just as byes and leg-byes are.
What I consider an outrage are overthrows off direct hits. Of course, there is the possibility of a showy fielder strutting his wares with the odd unnecessary throw, or an aggressive bowler throwing down the stumps to show the batsman his place, but to reward the batting side for a genuine direct hit defies every tenet of justice. A throw that misses its mark has every chance of being cut off by a fielder backing up, but you never know where a ball might ricochet to, off the stumps.
Imagine this. Two to win off the last ball. The batsman manages to squeeze the yorker out and scampers a single; a fielder from within the circle hares in, scoops the ball up and throws the stumps down. It's a desperately close call and the replays show the batsman to be in by a fraction. But the ball has been deflected to an unguarded area, allowing the batsmen to sprint the winning second run.
Batsmen get the benefit of the doubt following the principle of justice that an innocent must never be hung. But what sense does it make to penalise an act of brilliance?
|Comments have now been closed for this article
Ed Hawkins: It's convenient to blame the underworld for every instance of fixing, but it's ordinary punters behind many of them
Rob Steen: Excessive success can destroy inhibition, and hence the capacity for shame
Andrew Alderson: The second-innings collapse at Lord's has revived concerns about New Zealand's top order
Allan Donald on one of the bowlers he found intimidating: the relentless Wasim Akram
Jon Hotten: Players like him, when absent, stir a yearning in the spectator that has nothing to do with team loyalty
Plays of the day from the IPL match between Mumbai Indians and Rajasthan Royals in Mumbai
Safe & simple online money transfer. Apply Now!
Available now at Cricshop