The catch and no run in the match between Karachi Kings and Lahore Qalandars

[akkers]

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere.
The match betwen KK and LQ in the last ball there was a catch taken and people thought match was over. When the catch was taken a run had not been completed (but the run was completed after the catch).
Now after all the hoo-ha it transpired from the 3rd umpire that it was a no-ball and ball had to be bowled again with a free hit. But they disallowed the run. They said it was in line with the rules.

I disagareed strongly. IMO since it was a no-ball the catch was null and void (irrespective of when the ball was declared no-ball). Therefore the run should have counted.

What do you guys think? I did not agree with their interprtation of the rules; I think they got it wrong big time.

 

[Gotham Cronie]

It's a dead ball as soon as the catch is taken.

What rule are you saying you don't agree with their interpretation of? Or did you not read the rules?

 

[Gayle_Force]

I guess my question would be that If the fielder knew that it was a no ball he may have attempted a runout. Sohail Akhter was well short of the crease when the ball was caught(obviously because he knew he will be caught). What if the fielder took this opportunity and ran him out, would that runout be valid?

 

[Syed1]

When a batsman is out caught no runs are added to the team total no matter how many they ran. Same situation here.

 

[Baigel]

No, The same thing transpired in the game between Multan and Karachi. Irfan Jr, had tanvir out on a full toss, smartly, karachi ran him out in case it was declared a No-Ball, yet Tanvir was allowed to continue his innings as the ball was dead (i believe).

 

[Gayle_Force]

The only thing I didn’t understand is why the batsmen had to switch ends?

The ball was declared dead and the run didn’t count. So I would think that Sohail Akhtar would have faced the final delivery?

 

[Gotham Cronie]

The only thing I didn’t understand is why the batsmen had to switch ends?

The ball was declared dead and the run didn’t count. So I would think that Sohail Akhtar would have faced the final delivery?

The batsmen had crossed before it was declared dead.

 

[Syed1]

The only thing I didn’t understand is why the batsmen had to switch ends?

The ball was declared dead and the run didn’t count. So I would think that Sohail Akhtar would have faced the final delivery?

Yeah that is where the umps messed up. If they aren't counting the run then the batsmen shouldn't have changed ends either. I expected better from international level ump like Aleem.

 

[barah_admi]

Yes, I think they got to the right decision but it was poorly handled and then the batsmen switching was incorrect.

 

[Gayle_Force]

The batsmen had crossed before it was declared dead.

Yea that makes sense. I do think that’s a bit harsh though.

 

[DeadBall]

Yeah that is where the umps messed up. If they aren't counting the run then the batsmen shouldn't have changed ends either. I expected better from international level ump like Aleem.

Once the batsmen cross it means that the position has changed. Same applies in normal catches, even if the run isn't given and the batsmen cross while the ball is in the air the person heading towards the batting crease will retain strike.

 

[akkers]

This cant be a fair rule and is harsh on the batting side. In this case the umpire missed a big no-ball.

So an umpire can be lazy and not spot a no-ball in the knowledge that it will be picked up by the 3rd umpire. But the batting side loses out.

IMO its a no-ball and the catch is null and void, it was not even a catch; Bopara fielded the ball.

MCC need to get their act together.

 

[Gayle_Force]

This cant be a fair rule and is harsh on the batting side. In this case the umpire missed a big no-ball.

So an umpire can be lazy and not spot a no-ball in the knowledge that it will be picked up by the 3rd umpire. But the batting side loses out.

IMO its a no-ball and the catch is null and void, it was not even a catch; Bopara fielded the ball.

MCC need to get their act together.

Allowing the run would be unfair to the fielding side as they were not aware of the no ball and hence did not attempt a run out.

 

[last_knight]

It's a dead ball as soon as the catch is taken.

What rule are you saying you don't agree with their interpretation of? Or did you not read the rules?

If bowler oversteps and ball hits wickets and then goes to boundary, batting team is awarded 5 runs. Same rule applies for a Free Hit Ball.
They don't declare it a dead ball.

Incident in question : Similar thing happened twice in IPL 2015 where batsmen were caught of a No-Ball. At one occasion they awarded a run, on second occasion they didn't award a run. So it's not black and white.

One thing is clear , it doesn't become a dead ball at point of catch.

 

[Gayle_Force]

If bowler oversteps and ball hits wickets and then goes to boundary, batting team is awarded 5 runs. Same rule applies for a Free Hit Ball.
They don't declare it a dead ball.

Incident in question : Similar thing happened twice in IPL 2015 where batsmen were caught of a No-Ball. At one occasion they awarded a run, on second occasion they didn't award a run. So it's not black and white.

One thing is clear , it doesn't become a dead ball at point of catch.

From my understanding, if the run is completed before the catch is taken then it counts. Otherwise, it doesn’t.

 

[Shariq7]

Hi, I'm a long time lurker but usually don't get a chance to post. However, I was kind of intrigued by the interpretation of the umpires in this game so I did a little digging of the MCC rules. I have to say that
I agree with the umpire's decision. Here is my take. According to the MCC Laws of Cricket 2017 code, two rules come into play.

First, Rule 20.1.2: The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.

Here, the umpire probably determined that the ball became dead because the batsmen and the fielders ceased to regard the ball in play as soon as the catch was taken. The fielder never threw the ball back to the bowler because he thought he had taken the catch and the play was over. Akhtar and Sadaf both slowed down their running as soon as they saw the fielder take the catch because they thought that Akhtar was out and the play was over. Thus, the action of the fielder and both batsmen gives rise to the idea that the ball was dead.

Second, Rule 18.12.2: If, while a run is in progress, the ball becomes dead for any reason other than the dismissal of a batsman, the batsmen shall return to the wickets they had left, but only if they had not already crossed in running when the ball became dead.

Here, the batsman was not out due to the no ball, but since both batsmen had crossed when the ball became dead, (at the moment the ball was caught and the fielding side and the batting side thought that the play was over), G. Sadaf correctly faced the last ball.

Okay I think I have wasted too much time on this, but in conclusion, I can see why the umpires decided that the ball was dead and Sadaf should face the last ball.

 

[akkers]

I strongly disagree with this rule. Any reference to a 3rd umpire should back up the on-field umpire, as if the on-field umpire had made the decision. The fact that TV replays showed a no-ball helps the on-field umpire in coming to a fair decision. The decision should be no different to if the on-field umpire had called no-ball himself.
IMO what should happen is that if a catch is taken then the batsmen complete the run they are making and then stop and there is no need for fielder to attempt a run-out. This is in line with normal fielding - when a a fielder picks up a ball and hold it the batsmen stop and do not attempt any further runs. Now if a no-ball is declared then that run/runs should be counted.