CRICKET.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 299, 24 December 1897, Page 2

CRICKET.

SOME KNOTTY POINTS

A correspondent, " N.L.," writes as follows :—" I should like to ask for a ruling on two points of law, having had both cases before me lately. On Saturday, whilst playing against Auckland XV., C. Hay struck the ball twice in defending his wicket, and then attempted to run. Was he out ? The rule says:—(A) A man is out if he strikes a ball twice except with the intention ot defending his wicket; then he may stop it with his bat or any part of his body except his hands. (B) No run shall count after striking the ball twice. Does the fact of running make him out ? I take it if the umpire decides he hit the ball a second time in defence the mere fact of his running goes for nothing." [The batsman should have been given out. It is true that he may hit a ball twice in defending his wicket, but when he attempts to run after making the second stroke it proves that his intention is to score off the hit. In such a case the striker must be given out for hitting the ball twice.—Actaeon.]

"N.L." also asks for a ruling on the following :—" In the test match McLeod was given out (by an umpire who I suppose has forgotten more cricket than I, the writer, have ever learnt) as stumped. The facts of the case are too well known to give them again, but I want to.know can a man be given out stumped to a no ball. The rule says not, and clearly McLeod was stumped, as there was no attempt at running in the question, the batsman stepped out of his ground thinking he was bowled and was immediately stumped by the wicket keeper and given out. I should like to know your opinion." [McLeod was certainly out, but he was nm out, not stumped. The rule says clearly enough that a man cannot be stumped off a no-ball, but he may be run out. Rnle 16 says, " The striker shall not be out from a no-ball, unless he be run out or breaking laws 26, 27, 29, and 30, which refer to obstructing the field, hitting the ball twice, and handling the ball." McLeod stepped out of his crease, therefore by the laws he could be run out.]

"J.K." of Maungatawhiri Valley propounds the following :—" In playing cricket, A, who is batting, plays at the ball (which he misses), and in doing so he falls down and knocks the wicket down. Is be out hit wicket, or does he play on ? [He is undoubtedly out "hit wicket," because he Avas playing tbe ball at the time. Any knocking down of wicket in running by the bat or body is not out. The disarranging of the wicket for which the striker would be out has reference only to the action at the moment of striking the ball. If the hat should be blown off, or in fact should any part of the apparel cause this disarrangement at tbe particular moment referred to this would be out. What the umpire has to watch is whether the disturbance of the wicket happened at the instant and while in the act of striking.]