[VIDEO] Batters withdrawing just before delivery is bowled - Unfair to the bowlers?

[MenInG]

This incident is an example:

==

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.111%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/eobwzv" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

Pakistan veteran Nida Dar was potentially lucky not to be given out following a late withdrawal at the crease during Saturday’s ODI against Australia at North Sydney Oval.

In the 27th over of Pakistan’s run chase, Dar walked away from a Tahlia McGrath delivery that crashed into her stumps.

Umpire Claire Polosak signalled a dead ball, and play resumed without much protest from the Australians, but commentators questioned whether the 36-year-old had been gifted an extra life at the crease.

Watch the Pakistan Women’s tour of Australia. Every T20I & ODI live & ad-break free during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >

Dar had stepped away after McGrath released the ball, and pundits theorised what would have happened if Australia appealed for bowled.

“I was always under the impression that when you were in your stance and tapped your bat down, you were ready to accept the delivery,” former Australian captain Rachael Haynes said on Fox Cricket.

“Nida Dar needs to be a bit careful there.”

Former Australian batter Alex Blackwell continued: I thought that was fair; she didn’t see the ball.”

Replays showed that Dar looked up and saw McGrath entering her delivery stride but did not pull away until after the ball had been released.

Channel 9 reporter Mark Gottlieb tweeted: “This should be out. We talk a lot about over rates in cricket, but bowlers shouldn’t have to wait until a batter is ready before starting to run in. Batters should face up quicker.”

Cricket commentator Sam Tugwell posted: “That’s out. The ball is well and truly out of Tahlia’s hand.”

Dar couldn’t make the most of her reprieve, dismissed by Annabel Sutherland in the 35th over for 29 (29).

Pakistan ultimately fell 101 runs short of the 337-run target at North Sydney Oval as Australia cruised towards a 3-0 whitewash.

Earlier, Australian wicketkeeper Beth Mooney scored a career-best 133 (105) to help the hosts register 9-336, the nation’s fourth-highest team total in ODI history.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...e/news-story/bad21ece86ef16f2ed671ea2d9681569

 

[Marooned]

What's "unfair" about it? It's not like the batter would've actually gotten out had he/she tried to play it.
The bowler isn't robbed of a wicket, they merely hit the stumps because the batter withdrew.

It's at best a minor inconvenience for the bowler.

 

[gazza619]

Unfair rule. Batters have been stupidly wasting too much time. Time is money. This is one of the reasons why I hated watching the likes of Chanderpaul & J Trott.

Bowlers are running in, it is the batters responsibility to be ready.

Be ready or get out!

 

[MenInG]

Unfair rule. Batters have been stupidly wasting too much time. Time is money. This is one of the reasons why I hated watching the likes of Chanderpaul & J Trott.

Bowlers are running in, it is the batters responsibility to be ready.

Be ready or get out!

Wonder how long before bowler bowls a beamer or a bouncer to the batter as he walks away without looking

 

[kumjsr]

Cricket is unnecessary time wasting game because of these antics.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This looks comical . There is nothing in the field of vision like fly or anything. Batter is ready. Suddenly withdraws.

 

[MenInG]

Poll added to the thread.

So was Nida Dar out or not?

 

[charlie007]

As much as it is an inconvenience, it is not out. Here’re the relevant dead ball laws governing this:

====

20.4.2.5 the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and, if the ball is delivered, makes no attempt to play it. Provided the umpire is satisfied that the striker had adequate reason for not being ready, the ball shall not count as one of the over.

20.4.2.6 the striker is distracted by any noise or movement or in any other way while preparing to receive, or receiving a delivery. This shall apply whether the source of the distraction is within the match or outside it. Note also 20.4.2.7. The ball shall not count as one of the over.

====

She did not attempt to play the ball, hence not out. Other interpretations are mere opinions.

 

[Saj]

Rules say not out but that was a very late withdrawal.

Surely she must have seen the bowler running in.

 

[sweep_shot]

Definitely unfair to the bowler. I think it should be counted as a legal delivery after the bowler has crossed a certain mark.

 

[charlie007]

Rules say not out but that was a very late withdrawal.

Surely she must have seen the bowler running in.

Of course, she even saw the ball being released and was seemingly watching it and then just withdrew. Frankly, it should have been out in my view especially since she was in it after the ball was released, but then we have laws for a reason. She moved away and didn’t attempt to play decided that for her.

 

[MenInG]

Of course, she even saw the ball being released and was seemingly watching it and then just withdrew. Frankly, it should have been out in my view especially since she was in it after the ball was released, but then we have laws for a reason. She moved away and didn’t attempt to play decided that for her.

Wonder if a lesser player would do this against someone like Starc? or Bumrah or SSA?

 

[charlie007]

Wonder if a lesser player would do this against someone like Starc? or Bumrah or SSA?

I can already visualize Starc raising a stink but Bumrah or SSA walking back to their marks!
Reactions also depend on the match state: if it’s Aus vs India and Starc bowls Pant out like that with 25 needed to win in 3 overs with 3 wickets remaining, Starc will fight Martians to get that out decisions.
If the same thing happens when 130 runs in 10 overs are required, and Arshdeep and Shami are batting, he’d probably laugh, cuss, and walk back.
Kinda similar to Rohit’s withdrawing the non-striker runout appeal against Shanaka - would he have done the same if 40 runs were required ? I don’t believe he would.

 

[ex-q-zit]

After withdrawing Nida was heard telling the non-striker that she was not ready. She has every right to withdraw but this was a bit too late. She withdrew after the ball pitched but was looking at the bowler while she was bowling. So a bit confused as sightscreen was not the issue.

 

[MenInG]

Nida Dar backed away from the delivery, which hit the stumps. However, Dead ball was called by the umpire, leading to some confusion on commentary and social media. However, it is clear that the umpire made the correct decision.

The Law in question here is Law 20.4.2.5, which states that either umpire should call and signal Dead ball when ‘the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and, if the ball is delivered, makes no attempt to play it.’

Clearly Dar, who only looked up as McGrath was well into her delivery action, did not make an attempt to play the ball, and thus is protected by this Law. The moment when the batter pulled out is not relevant – as long as the umpire is satisfied that the striker was not ready for the delivery, it does not matter that her actual step away was after the ball had been delivered.

It is worth noting that a batter cannot simply determine that the delivery was too good for them, and back away. If the umpire believes they were ready to face, and then backed away, they are not protected by this Law (they may be protected by Law 20.4.2.6 if they are distracted, but that is a different matter).

However, the video clearly shows, in this case, that Dar was looking down as McGrath entered her delivery stride, and only looked up for the first time as the ball was being delivered. This is clearly a case of a batter who was not ready.

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-clarifies-law-relating-to-striker-backing-away

 

[wrongun]

Too late imo.

The batter has a long time to get ready, indicate readiness, walk away and start again. Once the bowler is in their delivery action/leap the batter should just have to deal with it. Let the 3rd umpire deliberate it if need be but she was clearly landed from her leap even.

If they need a clear marker then have it be the end of the vertical crease mark which indicates the "box" the bowler can't go wider than. Once the bowler has reached that mark- the batter is locked into the delivery.

 

[hitthestump]

Regardless of whether it is technically too late, the benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the batsman.

Nida wasn't trying to exploit the system here - she genuinely wasn't ready.

Australian's did the right thing by not trying to escalate the matter. It would only be neccessary if there was a genuine question of a batsman trying to take advantage by doing this.

 

[hitthestump]

Too late imo.

The batter has a long time to get ready, indicate readiness, walk away and start again. Once the bowler is in their delivery action/leap the batter should just have to deal with it. Let the 3rd umpire deliberate it if need be but she was clearly landed from her leap even.

If they need a clear marker then have it be the end of the vertical crease mark which indicates the "box" the bowler can't go wider than. Once the bowler has reached that mark- the batter is locked into the delivery.

They do this 99.9% of the time.

On the rare occasion where they are not ready they should not have to sacrifice their wicket, otherwise you'll see the reverse exploit where bowlers are trying to sneak balls in all the time.

 

[wrongun]

They do this 99.9% of the time.

On the rare occasion where they are not ready they should not have to sacrifice their wicket, otherwise you'll see the reverse exploit where bowlers are trying to sneak balls in all the time.

The bowler literally cannot "sneak a ball in"- the batter gets to set the temp by addressing the crease and tapping his bat. Once he gives those signals- himself- then he should be ready to go.

The batsman is not required "to sacrifice his wicket"- he is simply required to play the damn ball! Over rates are half what they used to be decades ago. If the bowler - who needs to fling it down there, recover, retrieve/receive the ball again, get back to his mark and run in again can do ALL that... then I think the precious batsman has time to stand there and look up.

 

[hitthestump]

The bowler literally cannot "sneak a ball in"- the batter gets to set the temp by addressing the crease and tapping his bat. Once he gives those signals- himself- then he should be ready to go.

The batsman is not required "to sacrifice his wicket"- he is simply required to play the damn ball! Over rates are half what they used to be decades ago. If the bowler - who needs to fling it down there, recover, retrieve/receive the ball again, get back to his mark and run in again can do ALL that... then I think the precious batsman has time to stand there and look up.

Is there a set process to addressing the crease or can this be subjective?

Shahid Afridi tried to rush the batsmen all the time and they often exercised their right to pull out. It didn't seem they had any protection from this other than their own decision making, the umpires would have had to give them out even if they weren't ready.