In cricket, there are three upright sticks (called stumps) about knee height behind the batter. If the ball delivered by the bowler hits any of the three stumps, the batter is out. This is the case if the batter completely misses the ball or hits it and the ball still goes on to hit the stumps. In order to provide an unambiguous signal that the ball has hit the stumps, on top of the stumps are two small cylindrical objects known as ‘bails’ that straddle the two gaps between the three stumps. These bails rest on grooves carved into the top of the stumps and for the batter to be out, at least one of the bails has to be dislodged and fall to the ground. The grooves are supposed to be deep enough that the wind won’t dislodge them but shallow enough that even very slight contact by the ball with any of the three stumps will cause them to fall. On very windy days, umpires have the option of using heavier bails.
In certain other situations such as run outs that involve split-second timing, it becomes important to know exactly when the ball hit the stumps. Usually the umpires make that judgment but for higher profile games such as in the World Cup currently underway, electronics have been introduced into the stumps and bails so that they flash when disturbed, indicating to the umpires the exact moment of impact. Such bails are called ‘zing’ bails.
There have been occasions in the past when the ball clearly hit the stumps, the bails went up in the air, but fell back into the grooves, a great stroke of luck for the batter since they get a reprieve. Here is an example of one such case.
But what has happened is that there appear to be many more cases nowadays when the ball has clearly hit the stumps firmly enough to make a sound and be visible to the naked eye but the bails have not been dislodged, even though they have sometimes lit up. There have been five occasions already in the current World Cup, the latest one just today in the crucial game between Australia and India, both unbeaten so far, when Australian David Warner got such a reprieve when he had scored just one run. He went to score 55 more before getting out.
What should the ICC do about these sticky bails? #CWC19 pic.twitter.com/aeY42kf6i3
— ESPNcricinfo (@ESPNcricinfo) June 9, 2019
This has led some to wonder if the electronics that have been introduced have made the bails heavier so that it takes greater force to dislodge them. But apparently the weight of these zing bails lie somewhere between that of ordinary bails and the heavier ones used on windy days. On the other hand, may be such things happened as frequently in the past but the lack of technology and video recordings tended to make them less memorable than nowadays. But something does need to be done since it is a little jarring to see the ball definitely hit the stumps but for the batter to be not out. One suggestion is that the grooves in which the bails sit be made shallower.
This post is part of an occasional series on cricket esoterica for the aficionados of the game.
O.K., I’m not a sports fan, so maybe “tradition” is too important to allow any significant changes, but why not just do away with the bails entirely? If their original purpose was to verify that the ball hit the stumps, and we have more accurate ways of doing that now, why not just rely on video and sensors, at least in professional leagues that can afford it?
I don’t see the problem. If the rule is that a bail must be (and must stay) dislodged for an out, then simply hitting the stumps doesn’t constitute an out. Couldn’t you just think of it as the cricket equivalent of hitting the post or crossbar without scoring, in soccer?
A bit OT: A question arising from your post about catching balls and boundaries: If a fielder makes a catch, but has momentum which will take him over the boundary, can he (before going over) throw the ball to a fellow fielder and still make the out?
Sorry for assuming gender.
I don’t know that anything needs to be done, but at top levels of cricket I could see some benefit to moving to a rigid zing stump.
Rob: yes, if the throw is made before any part of the first fielder touches the boundary, and of course if the second person sticks the catch.
That’s not correct -- if the ball dislodges the bails the batter is out -- NOT simply if it contacts the stumps.
It’s actually the bails that count, not the stumps -- which is why a batter can get themselves out disloding them with their bat, and I’ve been given out when the ball never hit the stumps but bails were dislodged (on an artificial service where the stumps were mounted on a base and the base, but not the stumps was struck).
Two reasons -- first the rules are now (even not a couple of hundred years ago) that dislodging the bails is the objective and second that as a game played widely in the street and by families at picnics the rules shouldn’t require technology to be effective and consistent (playing in competition should not be a different game).
Mano is just observing that the game may need it’s equipment tweaking -- lighter or otherwise designed bails used to better balance their behaviour. All sports generally needs rules and regulations updated time to time.
Rob @#2,
The point is that the bails are there to indicate when the ball definitely hit the stumps, because it is hitting the stumps that constitute the batter being out. So ideally, the bails should function so that when the ball hits the stumps, the bails fall. Here we have situations where the stumps have been definitely hit but the bails have not fallen. So the bails are not doing the job they were designed to do, so to speak.
One could understand if the ball brushes the stumps ever so slightly but here we have cases where the contact was quite obvious.
Mano,
Nope.
Law 28.
(1(b) in particular)
Like some others, I don’t really see the problem. Weird things happen in sports, perhaps especially in high-level competitions. So do unusual “runs” of statistically-unlikely events. Provided the equipment is in-spec, hasn’t been tampered-with, and the interpretation of the game’s laws is not obviously inconsistent, then (as in the OP situation) the batter got lucky. Luck is another part of sports.
Of course, if it continues to be the case — and not just in the World Cup — that the bails don’t come off when the stumps are indisputably hit, then something is wrong. (Also seriously wrong in the very unlikely possibly it’s discovered the World Cup’s bails / stumps have been tampered with.)
“Well that’s a sticky wicket.”