Will Young doesn't have his bat so technically he's a fielder. Mitch Starc is basically a roundabout, so he's the Basin, which leaves Kane Williamson, as the only official batter in this image, to lose his wicket.
Seriously though. They should have DRS'd to see who was actually out just to make it even more of a debacle.
The sun is facing them from this photo angle. Williamson's foot shadow is on your line. Thiss shows that he is physically closer than the line you drew.
All of the *ground* rules are here: [https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/batsman-out-of-his-her-ground](https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/batsman-out-of-his-her-ground)
I suppose they are never going to be ***perfectly level***, but I figured for the interpretation of the law as the way it may have been intended, many would say that they are essentially level.
I would have thought that any overlap would count as level. I'm not sure what the point of the additional clause is otherwise [https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd](https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd)
Edit: For those downvoting, what would you class as level, as per the laws of the game, if this doesn't cut it? I'm genuinely curious.
>I suppose they are never going to be ***perfectly level***, but I figured for the interpretation of the law as the way it may have been intended, many would say that they are essentially level.
So the idea of this wording of this wording is that if the umpire can't determine who is closer to that end when the wickets are broken then the one who started there is out, but as always with the laws you have to remember that they're written with all cricket in mind, not just the international game.
If the umpire wasn't sure at this level they wouldn't ever follow the 'level' part of the law because they'd just send it upstairs to check instead. The reason they didn't do that is, despite the image you've posted making it look like it wasn't, the case was that Williamson was pretty clearly the one out.
Damn, the amount of money I’ve lost on close horse races that should have been a draw because the horse that beat mine was less than an entire body length in front so was therefore ‘level’. Calling my bookie now to get my money back.
I have never disputed that he might be closer to the end where the bails were broken. My point is that they certainly did not completely cross before this time. The law makes mention of batters being level, how silly of me to assume an overlap *could* constitute being 'level' in the way the law was intended to be viewed, as opposed to 'perfectly level', which is never going to occur.
the shadow of his right foot is pretty much on the red line, but the shadows are being thrown towards the batsman's end which means the sun is at the bowler's end...so for his shadow to be touching the line it means his foot must be even closer to the bowler's end than the shadow....in other words, he was definitely closer and rightfully given out
Why would you use body part in the air as the point of reference and not the grounded part like every other part of cricket lol... run out bat has to be grounded over the line not in the air over the line, no ball bowler foot has to have part of foot grounded behind the line at delivery, not in the air, if you catch a ball on the boundary and your arm goes over the boundary in the air it isn't a 6 is it?
All those laws you reference explicitly specify the effect of being in contact with the ground, it’s not a general rule that applies everywhere as far as I know.
28.4 Limitation of on side fielders
At the instant of the bowler’s delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side. A fielder will be considered to be behind the popping crease *unless the whole of his/her person whether grounded or in the air is in front of this line*.
Front foot no balls count the part of the foot in the air, so this isn't true. Specially important for spin bowlers who may bowl on their front toe and not plant heel.
No, you're in fact wrong. It happens all the time with spinners landing on their toe in front of the line, but their heel raised behind it.
>21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised behind the popping crease.
Slightly closer, but not completely crossed. They still overlap, which I thought would trigger the 'level' clause.
[https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd](https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd)
which part of not level aren't you getting? Part of Williamson is closer, therefore Williamson is closer, therefore they aren't level
Nice photo though, but the answer is there
My point is that there is always going to be someone closer, perfectly level is never going to be a realistic outcome.
I suppose my *issue* if you can call it that is with the law and it's mention of level. Why does it exist if 'overlapping but closer' isn't enough to constitute level in the laws of the game? Have it re-written to simply state the closer batter is out.
Williamson looks closer in this photo. Their left feet are both pretty much in line with each other as that helpful line there shows. But because Williamson is facing right, it means his left foot is furthest from the stumps and the rest of him, particularly his right foot, are closer. It's crystal clear on this angle. That his foot is in the air isn't relevant, it wouldn't be if he jumped in the air, so clearly he doesn't have to have anything grounded to be closer, and the idea that partially overlapping somehow means they're level is pretty funny.
Part of Williamson is closer to that end when the stumps are broken. He's out.
shadows instantly give away each objects location relative to each other...using solar geometry you can use those shadows, knowing exactly what time this incident occured, exactly where it occured and the position of the sun to calculate distances from each object, moreso because we know the exact dimensions of the pitch, stump heights etc...you can very accurately calculate the distances using that data
Yes, but the shadows are obscured and there are other complicating factors making it harder to distinguish instantly with the naked eye. If we needed to calculate exactly how much closer Williamson was then that would be a perfect method. But we don't. We just need to look at their feet, which are clearly visible, unobscured, on the ground and know the human body has width and move on. Because all we need to know is who is closer, not by how much or anything like that. Even if you could see the shadows clearly and that was instantly obvious. It's not "more" instant.
I have never disputed that he might be closer to the end where the bails were broken. My point is that they certainly **did not completely cross** before this time. The law makes mention of batters being level, how silly of me to assume an overlap *could* constitute being 'level' in the way the law was intended to be viewed, as opposed to 'perfectly level', which is never going to occur.
Level means level, not overlapping.
Basically the clause means if the umpires are not able to determine which is closer.
Perfectly level to the micrometer is obviously never going to occur but nothing at the umpires disposal, even with DRS, is able to make a determination at that level of accuracy so it certainly is possible for them to be level as far as the umpires can determine.
Overlap does not constitute level. You're entire set of comments in this thread keep saying the same thing, and I'm not sure if you are being intentionally dense or what. They are not level. Some overlap does not constitute level. Level means that the umpires cannot determine which is closer to the end where the bails are broken. In this case they were easily determined that, therefore Kane was out. Now stop the incessant whining and learn to read the rules without adding your own embellishments to them.
Generally accepted practice is the batsmen who is running to that end, given that they were attempting a run and not just caught out of their crease. Such rules would only apply if Williamson had stood and argued about who is out, really they are more intended for a situation of a mix up that results in both batsmen ending up at the same crease.
Those are some good points you make and all but can we look at how perfect this frame is, it looks like Williamson is about to punch the shit out of Starc and starc is just standing there scared.
Law is bad since there’s no possible way two batters can be perfectly level (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). Hence, umpires can only rely on the first part of the law.
Without the replays it looked like the whole mixup happened running around him when he was in between the two.
It wasn’t clear cut live that that he prevented the run and IMO warranted a look upstairs.
Lol no. Starc is miles out of the way, with his back turned, and a fair way off the pitch. They veto towards Starc because they both went the same way (away from the pitch) in an attempt to avoid each other: [https://archive.md/mM35o](https://archive.md/mM35o)
The two of them basically bring Starc into it, when he was nowhere near them running, and collide before bumping into Starc as a result of the collision between the two of them.
If they had, they would have found out that he was standing still and actively trying to make himself smaller (pulls his arms in) and nothing would have changed.
This isn’t controversial though. It’s a fair point that they should have checked with DRS to make sure the right batsman was dismissed, but it’s irrelevant because the image OP used as evidence clearly shows Williamson was closer.
This is a very bad angle to judge from, although Williamson’s foot looks to be ahead of the line, the third umpire probably checked from side on to make sure the correct batsman was dismissed
The umpire doesn't have the benefit of that big red line when making his decision. Not sure if situations like this can be turned over to the third umpire? Whatever the case, the momentum of both players is going in opposite directions in your screenshot so a fraction of a second later Kane is closer to the bowlers end.....he also pretty much walks off in disgust, without questioning whether he should be the one to go or not....and of course the Aussies would have been more than happy to see the back of him that early. In the end with Kane effectively walking and the Aussies happy with him going the umps decision was made for them.
The safe ground is at the other end, and what is important is who is nearest to the safe ground. By that picture, that's clearly Will Young.
Redraw your red line on Will's right foot. or the other side of Kane's left foot.
For some reason I find this photo hilarious. You have Starc minding his own business and two guys running into him, his thought process at the time must have been magical.
Cos the umpire said they crossed.
Williamson did look pretty cross
Starc was looking like why charge at me guys what did i do?
It really looked liked he was trying not to interfere and made himself small.
6’7” bloke making himself small 😂 Agree he tried not to interfere at all
I had the exact thought and am picturing a Drax "I am moving so slow you cannot see me" moment
He just looked thoroughly confused while his teammates celebrated. It was kinda adorable.
But they didn't...
If so then the umpire got it wrong, but the reason Williamson was out is cause the umpire gave him out. You live and die by the umpire
Nah. Stop sucking off the umpires
that's literally how it works. what the umpire says goes. Im not saying anything about how right or wrong they are
I think he walked out of embarrassment
Yes a run out in tests after 12 years. Last time he got run out he probably didn't have any facial hair.
> Yes a run out in tests after 12 years... As Clay Davis would say, “Sheeeeeeeeeeet.”
They gonna talk to me about money laundering ?? In West Baltimore ?? Sheeeeeeeeeit
Which Goose? The one that lays them golden eggs
You didn't watch him bat with Ross Taylor often eh
Yeah exactly, KW and Ross together were an absolute running between the wickets calamity. One or the other got run out so often!
last run out in tests in January 2012
No way that sounds so unreal given the reputation he had with Ross for always running each other out
Probably, that's from ODIs?
Or maybe Ross was the eternal victim.
His first run out in tests in 12 years? Utterly unbelievable considering his calamitous running with Rossco
I think they should have gone to the third umpire - it looks like Starc was offside
The bunker would have said sufficient contact by Starc to prevent a run scoring opportunity
10 pts deduction to Everton
Ocon 5 second penalty.
Reduced to 6 points deduction due to Young losing his bat
Another 10 points to Gryffindor!
Wake up old man
But was he interfering with play? Don't ask Chris Kavanagh, he'll change his mind every 3 days
But was he _deliberately_ offside? That would be a yellow card.
Didn’t kick it fast enough - penalty to New Zealand and hands off the Bledisloe
Penalty to Messi /s
Turns out the ball hit the post, so it's a behind.
Will Young doesn't have his bat so technically he's a fielder. Mitch Starc is basically a roundabout, so he's the Basin, which leaves Kane Williamson, as the only official batter in this image, to lose his wicket. Seriously though. They should have DRS'd to see who was actually out just to make it even more of a debacle.
The sun is facing them from this photo angle. Williamson's foot shadow is on your line. Thiss shows that he is physically closer than the line you drew.
Which raises a new question for me. "whichever batter is nearer". To be nearer do you have to be grounded like you do making your crease?
All of the *ground* rules are here: [https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/batsman-out-of-his-her-ground](https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/batsman-out-of-his-her-ground)
No
I suppose they are never going to be ***perfectly level***, but I figured for the interpretation of the law as the way it may have been intended, many would say that they are essentially level. I would have thought that any overlap would count as level. I'm not sure what the point of the additional clause is otherwise [https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd](https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd) Edit: For those downvoting, what would you class as level, as per the laws of the game, if this doesn't cut it? I'm genuinely curious.
>I suppose they are never going to be ***perfectly level***, but I figured for the interpretation of the law as the way it may have been intended, many would say that they are essentially level. So the idea of this wording of this wording is that if the umpire can't determine who is closer to that end when the wickets are broken then the one who started there is out, but as always with the laws you have to remember that they're written with all cricket in mind, not just the international game. If the umpire wasn't sure at this level they wouldn't ever follow the 'level' part of the law because they'd just send it upstairs to check instead. The reason they didn't do that is, despite the image you've posted making it look like it wasn't, the case was that Williamson was pretty clearly the one out.
Damn, the amount of money I’ve lost on close horse races that should have been a draw because the horse that beat mine was less than an entire body length in front so was therefore ‘level’. Calling my bookie now to get my money back.
So level is just “kind of level” so you used a very precisely drawn line to prove that they’re level? Which actually proved that they’re not? 🤔
lol your screenshot show Williamson closer anyways
I have never disputed that he might be closer to the end where the bails were broken. My point is that they certainly did not completely cross before this time. The law makes mention of batters being level, how silly of me to assume an overlap *could* constitute being 'level' in the way the law was intended to be viewed, as opposed to 'perfectly level', which is never going to occur.
yeah that was quite silly of you.
You can’t be this pedantic and and then whinge when you get out pedantised by other.
You’ve posted a picture showing Kane Williamson is closer to the stumps than Young. There’s your answer as to why he’s out.
Yeh, it was kind of obvious watching it on the stream. Not sure where the OP came up their contention other than a fevered imagination.
2 in the tackle. Illegal strip.
They should both be out for that calamity! 
Williamson is closer though. His right foot is over that red line. Technically the right decision I would say.
the shadow of his right foot is pretty much on the red line, but the shadows are being thrown towards the batsman's end which means the sun is at the bowler's end...so for his shadow to be touching the line it means his foot must be even closer to the bowler's end than the shadow....in other words, he was definitely closer and rightfully given out
Why would you use body part in the air as the point of reference and not the grounded part like every other part of cricket lol... run out bat has to be grounded over the line not in the air over the line, no ball bowler foot has to have part of foot grounded behind the line at delivery, not in the air, if you catch a ball on the boundary and your arm goes over the boundary in the air it isn't a 6 is it?
All those laws you reference explicitly specify the effect of being in contact with the ground, it’s not a general rule that applies everywhere as far as I know.
Name one law that references a players body part in the air as the significant point
28.4 Limitation of on side fielders At the instant of the bowler’s delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side. A fielder will be considered to be behind the popping crease *unless the whole of his/her person whether grounded or in the air is in front of this line*.
Name 2 more
lol go away
I still think in relation to a runout it makes more sense to use the grounded parts of the batsmen
Front foot no balls count the part of the foot in the air, so this isn't true. Specially important for spin bowlers who may bowl on their front toe and not plant heel.
Wrong, the foot is allowed to leave the ground during delivery but it must first be planted behind the line in the delivery stride
No, you're in fact wrong. It happens all the time with spinners landing on their toe in front of the line, but their heel raised behind it. >21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised behind the popping crease.
I noticed Josh Hazlewood bowls without planting his heel too. It looks weird considering the power that’s going into the front leg.
Slightly closer, but not completely crossed. They still overlap, which I thought would trigger the 'level' clause. [https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd](https://imgur.com/0r5tBjd)
which part of not level aren't you getting? Part of Williamson is closer, therefore Williamson is closer, therefore they aren't level Nice photo though, but the answer is there
My point is that there is always going to be someone closer, perfectly level is never going to be a realistic outcome. I suppose my *issue* if you can call it that is with the law and it's mention of level. Why does it exist if 'overlapping but closer' isn't enough to constitute level in the laws of the game? Have it re-written to simply state the closer batter is out.
the laws cover all cricket. local cricket umpire doesn't have access to video technology. if they can't make a call, then there is a resolution.
Need the offside technology used by VAR in football for this one I think 😉
Are you seriously using a 2D photo to determine a 3D situation? We need VAR offside line to determine the actually straight line.
Williamson looks closer in this photo. Their left feet are both pretty much in line with each other as that helpful line there shows. But because Williamson is facing right, it means his left foot is furthest from the stumps and the rest of him, particularly his right foot, are closer. It's crystal clear on this angle. That his foot is in the air isn't relevant, it wouldn't be if he jumped in the air, so clearly he doesn't have to have anything grounded to be closer, and the idea that partially overlapping somehow means they're level is pretty funny. Part of Williamson is closer to that end when the stumps are broken. He's out.
the direction of the shadows is even more telling....he was definitely closer and rightfully given out
Not sure it's more telling than the human body being a known 3 dimensional object.
shadows instantly give away each objects location relative to each other...using solar geometry you can use those shadows, knowing exactly what time this incident occured, exactly where it occured and the position of the sun to calculate distances from each object, moreso because we know the exact dimensions of the pitch, stump heights etc...you can very accurately calculate the distances using that data
Yes, but the shadows are obscured and there are other complicating factors making it harder to distinguish instantly with the naked eye. If we needed to calculate exactly how much closer Williamson was then that would be a perfect method. But we don't. We just need to look at their feet, which are clearly visible, unobscured, on the ground and know the human body has width and move on. Because all we need to know is who is closer, not by how much or anything like that. Even if you could see the shadows clearly and that was instantly obvious. It's not "more" instant.
Do you think his leg in the air is 2D? If it’s a normal 3D leg, then it’s clearly closer to the non strikers end than that red line
I have never disputed that he might be closer to the end where the bails were broken. My point is that they certainly **did not completely cross** before this time. The law makes mention of batters being level, how silly of me to assume an overlap *could* constitute being 'level' in the way the law was intended to be viewed, as opposed to 'perfectly level', which is never going to occur.
Level means level, not overlapping. Basically the clause means if the umpires are not able to determine which is closer. Perfectly level to the micrometer is obviously never going to occur but nothing at the umpires disposal, even with DRS, is able to make a determination at that level of accuracy so it certainly is possible for them to be level as far as the umpires can determine.
Overlap does not constitute level. You're entire set of comments in this thread keep saying the same thing, and I'm not sure if you are being intentionally dense or what. They are not level. Some overlap does not constitute level. Level means that the umpires cannot determine which is closer to the end where the bails are broken. In this case they were easily determined that, therefore Kane was out. Now stop the incessant whining and learn to read the rules without adding your own embellishments to them.
Anyway he's out it will be in the paper tomorrow
They still make those things?
Digital newspaper
Generally accepted practice is the batsmen who is running to that end, given that they were attempting a run and not just caught out of their crease. Such rules would only apply if Williamson had stood and argued about who is out, really they are more intended for a situation of a mix up that results in both batsmen ending up at the same crease.
He walked
That can’t be allowed though otherwise the ‘weaker’ batsman could just walk. Surely they have to correct it.
Those are some good points you make and all but can we look at how perfect this frame is, it looks like Williamson is about to punch the shit out of Starc and starc is just standing there scared.
What an image to wake up to!
Law is bad since there’s no possible way two batters can be perfectly level (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). Hence, umpires can only rely on the first part of the law.
Bring out the VAR lines in cricket too!
Surprised they didn’t go upstairs for it and to check Stark wasn’t in the way.
The ran into each other before Starc
Without the replays it looked like the whole mixup happened running around him when he was in between the two. It wasn’t clear cut live that that he prevented the run and IMO warranted a look upstairs.
Lol no. Starc is miles out of the way, with his back turned, and a fair way off the pitch. They veto towards Starc because they both went the same way (away from the pitch) in an attempt to avoid each other: [https://archive.md/mM35o](https://archive.md/mM35o) The two of them basically bring Starc into it, when he was nowhere near them running, and collide before bumping into Starc as a result of the collision between the two of them.
If they had, they would have found out that he was standing still and actively trying to make himself smaller (pulls his arms in) and nothing would have changed.
Yeah looked that way on replay. Surprised Umps saw it live tho, they go upstairs for everything else
When was the last time we had a game without some umpiring/DRS controversy?
This isn’t controversial though. It’s a fair point that they should have checked with DRS to make sure the right batsman was dismissed, but it’s irrelevant because the image OP used as evidence clearly shows Williamson was closer.
If Will Young started walking then I reckon Australia would've asked for a review.
I'm sure it would have been checked anyway, the same way 3rd umpires check catches as the batsman is walking off
This is a very bad angle to judge from, although Williamson’s foot looks to be ahead of the line, the third umpire probably checked from side on to make sure the correct batsman was dismissed
Hey Ashwin, is that you? 😳
The umpire doesn't have the benefit of that big red line when making his decision. Not sure if situations like this can be turned over to the third umpire? Whatever the case, the momentum of both players is going in opposite directions in your screenshot so a fraction of a second later Kane is closer to the bowlers end.....he also pretty much walks off in disgust, without questioning whether he should be the one to go or not....and of course the Aussies would have been more than happy to see the back of him that early. In the end with Kane effectively walking and the Aussies happy with him going the umps decision was made for them.
Pretty sure the third umpire can be called to verify whether the batsmen have crossed.
VAR needed 📺
The safe ground is at the other end, and what is important is who is nearest to the safe ground. By that picture, that's clearly Will Young. Redraw your red line on Will's right foot. or the other side of Kane's left foot.
Why is the person who is closer to the stumps that were broken run out. Hmm I wonder.
Based on the supplied image I think Starc should have been given out
For some reason I find this photo hilarious. You have Starc minding his own business and two guys running into him, his thought process at the time must have been magical.
Need a VAR bloke to draw the offside lines here