Cummins declared on a Jack Leach hat-trick ball, why no spirit of cricket when it comes to bowlers?

[Major]

Remember when Randiv bowled a no ball on purpose and left Sehwag stranded on 99* with one to win. Sehwag whined about it and Randiv was even banned for a match for this.

Just today, Jack Leach picked 2 wickets in 2 balls. He was on a hattrick, and Pat Cummins instead of coming out to face the hattrick ball declared the innings.

Now the question is, why was the spirit of cricket invoked against Randiv. He bowled a no ball and got banned for it.
Cummins declared the innings on purpose, shouldnt the same law apply to him?

 

[Gilly]

Remember when Randiv bowled a no ball on purpose and left Sehwag stranded on 99* with one to win. Sehwag whined about it and Randiv was even banned for a match for this.

Just today, Jack Leach picked 2 wickets in 2 balls. He was on a hattrick, and Pat Cummins instead of coming out to face the hattrick ball declared the innings.

Now the question is, why was the spirit of cricket invoked against Randiv. He bowled a no ball and got banned for it.
Cummins declared the innings on purpose, shouldnt the same law apply to him?

Ummm Leach is still on a hat trick when he bowls his next ball so that destroys that.

 

[Smudger]

Why should Pat send another batter just because leach was on a meaningless hattrick. There was very little time left in the day anyway

 

[Rana]

Jack leach has annoyed all of Australia with that video he made of the single when batting with Ben stokes.

He has a Hassan Ali like Status in Australia just as Hassan has in India

 

[Major]

Stupid post. Why should Patt send another batter just because leach was on a meaningless hattrick. There was very little time left in the day anyway

than why was randiv given a ban. He aswell was bowling meaningless deliveries in a match that was long lost and only time was being wasted by continuing the game for Sehwag's sake

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The analogy doesn't really make sense.

Firstly Leach is on a hat trick next time he bowls ( it will deffo be less special and prestiguous though).

Secondly what Cummins did is within the LAWS of the game, deliberately bowling a no ball breaks a cricketing rule , hence the penalty run punishment.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

The analogy doesn't really make sense.

Firstly Leach is on a hat trick next time he bowls ( it will deffo be less special and prestiguous though).

Secondly what Cummins did is within the LAWS of the game, deliberately bowling a no ball breaks a cricketing rule , hence the penalty run punishment.

Hattricks aren't across matches.

 

[James]

I thought personally that it was entirely within the laws of the game and was not really a big issue, but was possibly a bit of a mischievous snub at the same time.

I’m proud of Jack Leach for his performance today, he is a guy that always seems to find himself under the cosh for one reason or another but credit to him he keeps plugging away and keeps coming back.

 

[topspin]

Remember when Randiv bowled a no ball on purpose and left Sehwag stranded on 99* with one to win. Sehwag whined about it and Randiv was even banned for a match for this.

Just today, Jack Leach picked 2 wickets in 2 balls. He was on a hattrick, and Pat Cummins instead of coming out to face the hattrick ball declared the innings.

Now the question is, why was the spirit of cricket invoked against Randiv. He bowled a no ball and got banned for it.
Cummins declared the innings on purpose, shouldnt the same law apply to him?

Leach will still be on a hat-trick.

 

[Major]

The analogy doesn't really make sense.

Firstly Leach is on a hat trick next time he bowls ( it will deffo be less special and prestiguous though).

Secondly what Cummins did is within the LAWS of the game, deliberately bowling a no ball breaks a cricketing rule , hence the penalty run punishment.

but the penality that randiv got was a match ban

 

[James]

Do hat tricks carry across matches now?

I didn’t think that they did.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Hattricks aren't across matches.

Ah ok my mistake. The overall point still stands imo

 

[DeadlyVenom]

but the penality that randiv got was a match ban

He deliberately bowled an illegal delivery.

What would we be banning Cummins for? Deliberately not getting out?

 

[Major]

He deliberately bowled an illegal delivery.

What would we be banning Cummins for? Deliberately not getting out?

that could be argued whether it was deliberate or not. Emotions and intentions cannot be held against you to place a charge.

I see no difference in stopping someone from getting a 100 and stopping someone from getting a hattrick.

Both are the same thing, a personal milestone being stopped one way or another.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

that could be argued whether it was deliberate or not. Emotions and intentions cannot be held against you to place a charge.

I see no difference in stopping someone from getting a 100 and stopping someone from getting a hattrick.

Both are the same thing, a personal milestone being stopped one way or another.

One is within the laws of the game and the other isn't.

The Sri Lankan was well within his rights to stop Sehwag from getting to a ton by either getting him out or by bowling a maiden over.

Similarly Cummins is well within his rights to declare.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Interestingly there is no set standard or rule for what constitutes a hat trick. It is just consensus that it should be in the same match.

It seems that many of us agree that it can apply to more than one match so we have created our own standard.

Jack Leach is therefore still on a Pakpassion hat trick. I will update the wikipedia entry for 'hattrick in cricket' accordingly.

 

[James]

Just had to go through the thread and remove quite a bit of nonsense.

No more personal remarks please — stick to the OP.

This is an interesting topic. Let’s have a discussion about it.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Very easy to understand if you wish to -

41.8. Bowling of deliberate front-foot No ball

If the umpire considers that the bowler has delivered a deliberate front-foot No ball, he shall

- immediately call and signal No ball.

- when the ball is dead, direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend the bowler immediately from bowling

- inform the other umpire for the reason for this action.

The bowler thus suspended shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.

If applicable, the over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled any part of the previous over, nor be allowed to bowl any part of the next over.

- report the occurrence to the batsmen and, as soon as practicable, to the captain of the batting side.

The umpires together shall report the occurrence to the ICC Match Referee who shall take such action as is considered appropriate


On the other hand, a captain can declare his innings any time he wants.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Given how much time is left in test, one could argue Australia in fact made a safe declaration. Now whether Cummins did it to deny Leach a hattrick or to just stop wasting time as runs weren't coming anyway we will never know.

But it's definitely not an obvious malice, and neither has Cummins done anything like that previously for anyone to assume he did it to stop Leach from getting a hattrick. Sending a batsman out there just to play a ball and be sportive isn't 'spirit of cricket'. It's being stupid with limited time left in the test.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

What does Cummins gain whether Leach gets a hattrick or not? Also hattricks are massively luck based, Leach might not get a hattrick

 

[Robert]

There have been several test match hat-tricks spread over two innings. Merv Hughes got one.

 

[James]

There have been several test match hat-tricks spread over two innings. Merv Hughes got one.

Yes two innings maybe but I imagine in the same match. Hat tricks I don’t believe can be carried across matches.

 

[Smudger]

The two examples op has given are not comparable because:
1. There was very little time left in the day so everyone knew declaration was around the corner and its not as if whole auusies team was in their training kits and Cummins suddenly declared just to deny jack leach a hattrick. Everyone knew the declaration was imminent and the whole aussie team was ready in their whites to take the field.
2. The probability of taking a hattrick are extremely slim as compared to taking a run so its not as if a new batsman coming in was bounf to get out.
Hell no one even noticed it. It was that trivial.

 

[James]

I noticed it -_-

Im a bit of a Leach fan though

 

[Robert]

I noticed it -_-

Im a bit of a Leach fan though

Leach has a big heart, with ball and bat

 

[The Googly]

A complete non story!! Who cares? It’s a team game. I’m not a fan of manufacturing individual achievements of this kind where the achievement is secondary to the outcome. Similarly, I had no sympathy for Sehwag.

 

[wrongun]

There have been Australian captains who declared on their own players batting on scores in the 90s & 190s. Just because it was time to declare.

I wouldn't expect an Australian captain to be worried at all about declaring on the opposition. Jack can get his hat trick later, if he's good enough. Meanwhile Pat has a game to win & had already delayed the declaration arguably too long.

Pat's concern is 1) do we have enough runs to win? 2) do we have enough time left to win? 3) if #1 is close/marginal, are we any chance of adding any significant runs without costing too much time?
No where on that list does worrying if good ol Jack gets a hat trick or not. This isn't a charity soup kitchen, it's a Test match.

 

[Smudger]

There have been Australian captains who declared on their own players batting on scores in the 90s & 190s. Just because it was time to declare.

I wouldn't expect an Australian captain to be worried at all about declaring on the opposition. Jack can get his hat trick later, if he's good enough. Meanwhile Pat has a game to win & had already delayed the declaration arguably too long.

Pat's concern is 1) do we have enough runs to win? 2) do we have enough time left to win? 3) if #1 is close/marginal, are we any chance of adding any significant runs without costing too much time?
No where on that list does worrying if good ol Jack gets a hat trick or not. This isn't a charity soup kitchen, it's a Test match.

Steve Smith once played a ramp shot in the 190s just because it was time to declare

 

[Technics 1210]

Didn’t Dravid declare once when Tendulkar was nearing a double century against Pakistan? Nation above personal achievements. Move on!

 

[silentkiller187]

Cummins was due in next so probably couldn't be bothered to bat

 

[sweep_shot]

Cummins can do whatever he wants as the captain as long as it is legal.

I see nothing wrong.

 

[transparent opacity]

I don't think spirit of cricket had anything to do with it.

Few overs were left in the day and he just wanted his bowlers to have a go at English batsmen.
Sending a new batsman would have wasted a couple of overs at least.