WATCH: Unique dismissal has cricket nerds reaching for law book

He is out. He didn't even look at the ump and just walked so there is no way the batsmen was walking under the impression he was given out. He should be out for the stupidity of walking, assuming he is out. Who does that? It is too grey on if the ump thought he was walking under his nodding. I am happy for that to be out

Good television coverage though.

Never underestimate how crap village cricketers can be!

No not exactly. You would have to be sure that the ball would not have gone above the shoulder had it not nicked the bat - but the fainter the nick, the less likely to cause the destined path of the ball to alter in any way.

See if I have this right, so a faint edge from a short ball in front of the body before it reaches head height is out, but if the edge happens above the head, that is a no ball?

No. Hitting the ball doesn't invalidate the noball. A bouncer of that height could be hooked down long leg's throat, it's still a noball.

The batsman wafted the bat above his head and got an edge through to the keeper. The square leg correctly called a no ball for height, but does the edge over-ride that call? I gave him out.

You mean he played it in front of him and it was the nick that changed the path of the ball upwards and caused it to go over the shoulder? If you were certain that was the case, then the correct thing to do would be for sq leg to rescind the noball call and then bowlers end umpire to give the batsman out.

Here is one that I had in juniors this year, can you clarify? The square leg ump signalled a no ball (ball bounced and travelled above the batsmens head), but the batsman actual knicked the ball through to the keeper (which the square leg ump didn't pick up on). I was at the bowlers end and after consulting with the square leg ump, gave the batsmen out. Was the kid out?

Yeah that's what I thought too, but how did the umpire miss the fact that the ball was dropped? (though I'm hardly one to talk in this instance :laughing: ) Batsman should definitely have been recalled.

Signalled out,so the ball is dead. The umpire should have recalled the batsman.

Right fair enough. I originally watched the umpire nod his head and the batsman walk off and just assumed the keeper tossed the ball on the ground. Silly me.

I didn't actually ... I'll have another look. If that's the case then he is not out under Law 31.7 as Dean Jones was back in 1991, no ifs or buts.

You did notice the keeper dropped the catch right?

There’s nothing sinister here, as the batsman edged behind to the keeper off a legal delivery and the umpire nodded his head to confirm the dismissal. The scorebook will read out caught, not run out. ____ Also, the ball is never ‘live’ in cricket, it is either dead or ‘in play’. The umpire does not always have to signal dead ball for it to be dead. Sometimes it is dead automatically, such as when the ball reaches the boundary, a bowler pulls out of his run up without delivering the ball or when a batsman is dismissed. _______________ In short, regarding Law 31.7, there was no miss-apphrehension whatsoever on the part of the batsman being out, he had already been given out by the umpire.