Talk:Hit the ball twice

Untitled

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)

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)

I think attempting a run makes "guarding his wicket" cease to be the "sole purpose" of hitting twice. He hit it twice for the purpose of avoiding being bowled as well as for the purpose of getting a few runs, which means he's out! -- Paddu 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe that's what the author meant. I'm still not sure though. And it's certainly rather confusing. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/15889.html suggests to me (although it doesn't quite say it explicitly) that he hit the ball twice in order to guard his wicket, and then tried to run; and because he tried to run, the second hit was regarded as not being solely to guard his wicket and so he was out. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dangermouse.net/cricket/out.html supports the above interpretation: "... the batsman may hit the ball away to prevent being out bowled, without being out hit the ball twice. He may not, however, score runs from the second hit, other than overthrows." -- Paddu 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Brodribb agrees with Stephen's comment above : Some of these dismissals have very odd histories ... That of JH King is typical : after playing a weak stroke to the ball, it showed signs of rolling into the wicket, so King hit the ball away. The second hit went as far as cover point, at which King called his partner and began to advance up the pitch. He seems to have done this under stress of excitement, and not as a joke or serious attempt to run : but the Surrey fielders apearled, and after consultation between the umpires, King was given out (Next man in, p. 233). The other example that he has provided is that of Charlwood at Hove 1872 who wsa given out after his partner showed signs of attempting a run, Charlwood himself had never left the crease. Tintin 03:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tintin. I wonder if you could make the article any clearer using this reference, because it's rather confusing at the moment. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that this weekend. Tintin 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

History section

I'm skeptical. What's the actual source for all the apparent seventeenth century cricket violence? Stevage 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right to be sceptical as there were not enough references. The key references to all that information are Buckley and McCann while the extra link is there for additional reading. --GeorgeWilliams 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)