Talk:Hit the ball twice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey peps! Could anyone give an example of "except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket".
I read it to mean if it after his first hit it looks to be going for his wicket he is allowed to hit it again. However we thought it might have some funny situations where the batsman is trying to stop himself being run out.
Cheers
Hey peps!
It doesn't make a lot of sense on first reading. As I understand it, you cannot use your free hand to guard your wicket against a ball already struck; but you are allowed to pick the ball up with your free hand and give it to a fielder if it isn't going to hit the wicket. So, if the batsman has already played the ball with the bat and he thinks it is going to hit the wicket and he knocks it away with his free hand, that is "hitting it twice" and he is out. But if he has blocked the ball at his feet and it isn't moving he can pick it up and hand it to a fielder if he is a polite sort of chap (i.e., not an Australian). --Jack 18:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] John King
Can someone explain the bit about John King? Why did attempting a run make him be out? Would this still apply now? Stephen Turner 12:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused here. There is nothing in the law about attempting a run. The whole point of the law is to prevent him from hitting the ball a second time to avoid being caught or bowled (i.e., played on). I think this bit about running is incorrect. --Jack 18:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jack, that's what I thought. But I wondered if the rule was maybe different back then? Stephen Turner 18:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Double hit and scenario
Stephen Turner, I was just wondering whether I was actually wrong in my addition.
I realise that I made a mistake with my reference to lbw, because after reading that entry it appears to be stated in the lbw rule itself that it needs to hit the person first, not bat, which i knew but didn't know whether it was stated in the lbw rule itself. However, I do not think that this Hit rule refers to hitting with the bat twice.
"...he wilfully strikes it again with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat..."
Here it states that, firstly it needs to be wilfull, and secondly it can be any part of his body, apart from non bat hand. So my common scenario of bat-to-pad would still apply, even without lbw. If this rule wasn't so defined ("wilfully"), I fail to see why bat-to-pad could not be given out.
- Well, you're right that it refers to the body too, but the second hit has to be deliberate. I felt your hypothetical example just confused the situation rather than clarified it, I'm afraid. Stephen Turner (Talk) 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I am interested in your reversion to include the topic title randomly within the first part of the rule. I would like to know why that is correct.
Thank you.
- This one is easy. It's a direct quotation from the Laws. See http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-34-hit-the-ball-twice,60,AR.html
- PS Please use ~~~~ on talk pages to sign your comments, like this:
- Stephen Turner (Talk) 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the feedback, and you make a good point. I suppose only an umpire knows what this law truly means...
Ok, I will use 81.104.177.44 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC) then. 81.104.177.44 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
