Should the batter be given out if ball hits stumps but bails don't come off?

[MenInG]

We have seen this a few times since 2019 World Cup and probably before that too!

Should the rule be changed so that ball hitting the stumps is good enough for the batter to be given out?

Not sure how it would be applied to run outs but guess up for discussion.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">UNBELIEVABLE <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ashes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ashes</a> <a href="https://t.co/yBhF8xspg1">pic.twitter.com/yBhF8xspg1</a></p>— cricket.com.au (@cricketcomau) <a href="https://twitter.com/cricketcomau/status/1479301025194393602?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Robert]

No. Bowlers should bowl faster! Back in the days Lillee would break the stump in two!

 

[James]

Keep the bails up rule I reckon…

 

[Varun]

At most - the batter should recognize he is beaten and walk off.

 

[ARK Rafay]

I think yes. Back in the days we had stumps to know whether the batsman was bowled or not. But now with the technology, cameras and zing bails it makes sense to scrap that rule.

After all in Cricket hitting the wicket as a bowler is supposed to be out.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

No.

 

[kumjsr]

No. Bowlers should bowl faster! Back in the days Lillee would break the stump in two!

Yes, bails are not dislodged because bowlers are slow and they have to faster to do that.

Stumps are broken because Lillee was bowling too fast.

How did you relate all these things?

Can you elighten us what is thresold speed to dislodge the bails and break the stumps?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMTadVqVagU

First ball 127 Kph, stumps broken.

Bumrah 135 Kph

Ravi Rampaul 135 Kph

Steyn 142 Kph

Rashid Khan 90 Kph

Brett Lee 140 Kph

Some instances when bails didn't fall off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCO6sQmhYUI

135 Kph
134 Kph

 

[mastimasti]

No....what would this rule change accomplish?

 

[Unbiased-Fan]

Big No

 

[sweep_shot]

No.

Bail needs to be dislodged completely.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

The whole point of having bails are so they can be dislodged.

If you’re going to make that as the rule then why have bails?

What’s next? Dropped catches should be out because it touched the hands?

Batsmen who nick the ball to keeper but it doesn’t carry should be out?

 

[Kraetoz]

No. Why do you need bails then? For Westindies batters to drill the bails on the pitch with their bat handle while taking gaurd?

 

[finalfantasy7]

bails have to come off

 

[Monsee]

Same thing happened when Warner was facing Imran Khan Sr. (Pak's last trip to Australia) and ball brushed the stumps (not hit as hard as last night) and bails didn't get dislodged...I think Warner scored a double century or something in that innings

 

[Major]

Bails exist so that when the ball touches the wicket, the bails would get dislodge and it makes it obvious to everyone around that it was out. This is why bails are very light weight and the top of a wicket is slightly dented so that the bail can easily slip off.

Why bails don't fall off now adays?
Zing bails

If you saw 2015 World Cup, there were instances where the bails didnt dislodge even though they lit up for a second. Misbah survived a huge brush against the wicket by the ball. That was because wickets have magnets in them and zing bails have some parts that make it abit heavy. The magnet also controls the bail from just dislodging.

In this series, zings are not being used, but the ball probably hit a part where the wicket got hit at the best angle from where the bail wouldn't be dislodge and the it stayed put.

An argument can be made that when the hit on the wicket is very obvious than in that case it should be out. But the falling of the bail is part of the cricket culture. It doesnt sit easy if the bowler hits the wicket the bail doesnt fall and we see the batsmen depart.

This is why umpire call exist when the ball doesnt fully seems to be hitting on hawk eye. As we dont know whether the bail would dislodge fully in that case of lbw where the ball hits less than 50%

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Why change rules? why not fix stumps so bails come off when hit?

It's happening more often that balls hit stumps and bails don't come off. Even saw ball go through stumps without bails dislodging.

The real solution lies in technology - and not changing rules of the game, which have been developed over a century and a half, at the drop of a hat.

 

[Concerned]

We have seen this a few times since 2019 World Cup and probably before that too!

Should the rule be changed so that ball hitting the stumps is good enough for the batter to be given out?

Not sure how it would be applied to run outs but guess up for discussion.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">UNBELIEVABLE <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ashes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ashes</a> <a href="https://t.co/yBhF8xspg1">pic.twitter.com/yBhF8xspg1</a></p>— cricket.com.au (@cricketcomau) <a href="https://twitter.com/cricketcomau/status/1479301025194393602?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The ball hit the stumps and the umpire gave it out. Would DRS not show the ball clipping the stumps with the umpire decision being final?

 

[daytrader]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What's happened there? &#55358;&#56623; <br><br>Heavy stumps maybe... &#55358;&#56611; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LVCountyChamp?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LVCountyChamp</a> <a href="https://t.co/i7QNZCa4TO">pic.twitter.com/i7QNZCa4TO</a></p>— LV= Insurance County Championship (@CountyChamp) <a href="https://twitter.com/CountyChamp/status/1523260583319314432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

Warner lucky as well today

8.6
Chahal to Warner, no run, ripper of a delivery! How has this missed the stumps? Or has it actually brushed the timber ever so slightly? Vicious leg break, spins sharply from an off stump line and past Warner's swinging blade. Samson can't gather it cleanly either, maybe he was also expecting it to crash into the sticks. Well it did brush the stumps, the bails lit up and fell back into place. Wow! At this rate, Warner better take a lottery tonight

 

[James]

Keep the bails up rule I reckon…

Might be changing my mind on this one a little bit… maybe the bowlers are getting a rough deal with it…

 

[hitthestump]

Yes, bails are not dislodged because bowlers are slow and they have to faster to do that.

Stumps are broken because Lillee was bowling too fast.

How did you relate all these things?

Can you elighten us what is thresold speed to dislodge the bails and break the stumps?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMTadVqVagU

First ball 127 Kph, stumps broken.

Bumrah 135 Kph

Ravi Rampaul 135 Kph

Steyn 142 Kph

Rashid Khan 90 Kph

Brett Lee 140 Kph

Some instances when bails didn't fall off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCO6sQmhYUI

135 Kph
134 Kph

This is a common problem for India i understand, as they do not have enough fast bowlers who can dislodge bails.

 

[Shaddy86]

Bails seem to be much heavier these days. The Zing stumps need to be touch sensitive so as soon as theres a connection made with the stumps the stumps should light up and given out. Bowlers are already hard done by and this adds salt to their wounds. Ridiculously unfair on a bowler to beat a batsman, hit the stumps and still not get rewarded for it.

 

[msb314]

Keep the rule as it is

 

[Sunzi]

Nothing wrong with the way it is - bails are used for a reason.

It's hardly common.

 

[Snowflake]

Yes.

Cricket needs to do away with all these uncontrolled variations and grey areas. We're starting to see several instances where the bails aren't dislodging despite heavy contact with the ball... Reasons vary from heavier bails to deeper grooves and what not.

Just like the "umpires call" on DRS, anything that involves luck or inexplicable reasoning should be eliminated. This sport is overly complicated as it is.

 

[silentkiller187]

Yes, it is becoming far to common, defo has to do with these new zinger bails and all the tech they are trying to get into these stumps, making them heavier at the base, with heavier bails and its harder to dislodge.

 

[sweep_shot]

Bails seem to be much heavier these days. The Zing stumps need to be touch sensitive so as soon as theres a connection made with the stumps the stumps should light up and given out. Bowlers are already hard done by and this adds salt to their wounds. Ridiculously unfair on a bowler to beat a batsman, hit the stumps and still not get rewarded for it.

This.

This should be the solution. Touch-sensitive bails.

 

[hitthestump]

Bails seem to be much heavier these days. The Zing stumps need to be touch sensitive so as soon as theres a connection made with the stumps the stumps should light up and given out. Bowlers are already hard done by and this adds salt to their wounds. Ridiculously unfair on a bowler to beat a batsman, hit the stumps and still not get rewarded for it.

This is very expensive. Secondly from this i can't understand what the purpose of bails is at all then? You could skip them entirely by just using technology to determine whether the ball has hit the stumps or not.

 

[sweep_shot]

This is very expensive. Secondly from this i can't understand what the purpose of bails is at all then? You could skip them entirely by just using technology to determine whether the ball has hit the stumps or not.

In that case, get rid of the bails.

Present day bails are faulty. It is not fair to the fielding teams.

 

[shamaan]

This.

This should be the solution. Touch-sensitive bails.

As soon as the light on the bail comes on then it should be out.

 

[Shaddy86]

This is very expensive. Secondly from this i can't understand what the purpose of bails is at all then? You could skip them entirely by just using technology to determine whether the ball has hit the stumps or not.

If a ball hits the boundary rope but doesn't go over it shouldn't be counted as a 4 since it didn't cross over the boundary. Beats the purpose of having a boundary right? The batsmen should only be rewarded a boundary if it crosses over.

 

[hitthestump]

If a ball hits the boundary rope but doesn't go over it shouldn't be counted as a 4 since it didn't cross over the boundary. Beats the purpose of having a boundary right? The batsmen should only be rewarded a boundary if it crosses over.

I have no idea what you are on about. Literally no idea.

 

[MenInG]

0.4
Hazlewood to Balbirnie, no run, appeal for a caught behind, turned down! Oh, there was a sound, and tell you what, that was the ball clipping the stumps. The bails haven't come off though! Was a length delivery that shaped away to beat Balbirnie and clip the bails before it flew to the keeper

 

[MenInG]

Latest episode

In the final session of day one in the first Test between India and Bangladesh at Chattogram on Wednesday, India’s middle-order batter Shreyas Iyer received a massive slice of luck for the second time.

After being dropped by Ebadot Hossain at deep mid-wicket on 67, Iyer was on 77 when the right-arm pacer breached his defence by beating him on the outer edge to hit the stumps. However, to Bangladesh’s dismay and India’s relief, the bails failed to dislodge and rested back on the stumps, giving Iyer a reprieve yet again.

According to Law 29.1 of the MCC Laws of cricket, the bail has to be fully dislodged for a batter to be given out. Under the wicket is broken, the law says, “The wicket is broken when at least one bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or one or more stumps is removed from the ground.”

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 45.028%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/119476" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[shamaan]

Yes if it hits the stumps it should be out.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It is the same for run out too. One bail must be removed. So this will become a mess having different rules for different dismissals.

 

[Amjid Javed]

The was the opposite incident in BBL where a batsmen played a pull shot and bat and his body weren't anywhere near ball and bail fell off. Batsmen was given not out after review.

 

[mon858]

I think so. Two reasons:
1. It's started happening lot more due to heavier zing bails
2. We have enough tech now to know if it's hit stumps or not using hot spot or ultra edge etc.

Just do it for bowled only. For run out bail dislodge still makes sense.

 

[MenInG]

The was the opposite incident in BBL where a batsmen played a pull shot and bat and his body weren't anywhere near ball and bail fell off. Batsmen was given not out after review.

Nic Maddinson didn't touch the stumps and the ball didn't touch the stumps but the bail has just fallen off.

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/oo55hq" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>