Expert: Gary S Nichol - 7/18/2009

Question
QUESTION: Regarding Ponting's dismissal today (if you haven't seen it, I'll
explain the scenario - initial appeal probably for LBW, ball would
have hit the stumps etc, ball caught at slip, umpire unsure whether
the batsman hit it), if the umpire is unsure  
whether the batsman hit the ball, but is certain that he is  
either a) out caught if he did hit it or b) out LBW if not, is  
it justified within the laws/regulations to give the batsman  
out?

ANSWER: Hello

I didn't see this but have also read about it.  The umpires did not consult to check if Ponting hit the ball, but to check if the catch was taken cleanly.  The striker's end umpire is in no place to comment on whether or not Ponting hit the ball.  So in the opinion of the bowler's end umpire the batsman did hit the ball, the catch was taken cleanly, and he is out, Caught.

Now, if the ball first hit the pad, then the bat, and then is caught, and the batsman is lined up for LBW then he still is out Caught.  This is in Law: regardless of what happens, bowled takes precedence over everything and after that, caught takes precedence.  So even if he was plumb LBW the catch takes precedence.  I should add that this is extremely difficult to get right - trying to work out if a ball hit the pad or bad, which are just a few cm apart, ball moving fast and you are 25 yards away it is not easy, which is probably why caught takes precedence over everything except bowled!

GSN

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you for such a long answer - I had no idea of precedence in the
Laws! As a follow-up, if the umpire(s) were genuinely unsure whether the
ball hit the bat, what decision could be given?
The way I see that situation, the umpire cannot give the LBW decision,
because there is enough possibility that the batsman hit the ball, but nor
can he give him out caught, because there is enough possibility that the
batsman did not hit the ball. On the other hand, if you consider LBW (say)
first, you decide he is not out on the assumption that the ball was hit,
and then considering caught you have already decided the ball was hit, so
the decision is out, caught. (Incidentally, in the precedence system, do
you consider caught first, thereby coming to the conclusion, maybe, that
he is out LBW, or consider LBW first and decide he is out caught?)

Answer
Usually in cricket everything is considered chronologically, the exception being that caught will take precedence over everything except bowled.

The umpire turned down LBW because he was convinced the batsman hit the ball, and hit it *before* the ball hit his pad.  The umpires do not consult about this since the square leg umpire is in no position to decide this.  They consult to be sure the catch was taken cleanly.

GSN.