Should that Six be credited to Sehwag or Not?

Dear Mr Karikalan,

Indeed this is a good technical point you have raised here.

Let me check your statements logically:

1. "The no ball bowled was the 100th ball bowled to Sehwag in this innings.If it is a No ball why the score card says Sehwag has played 100 deliveries?"

Indeed, you are logically correct here. Sehwag has played only 99 deliveries. The rule explicitly states:

"14. No ball not to count

A No ball shall not count as one of the over. See Law 22.4 (Balls not to count in the over)."

However, the ball is not "dead" technically (as you indicated in your question) after the no ball call:

"11. Ball not dead

The ball does not become dead on the call of No ball."

This is a very important issue here, because, since the ball is not dead runs can be scored , and , that will be counted in the no-ball!

2. I would like to add on what the rule book says on a slightly unrelated issue to your question, but, very much in context with the situation. This pertains to run scored. The rule book states:

a) 12. Penalty for a No ball

A penalty of one run shall be awarded instantly on the call of No ball. Unless the call is revoked, this penalty shall stand even if a batsman is dismissed. It shall be in addition to any other runs scored, any boundary allowance and any other penalties awarded.

This we all know and agree that there is 1 run from a no ball.

However, because the ball is not dead the next corollary is:

b) "13. Runs resulting from a No ball - how scored

The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras."

Basically, the six should still be credited to the same no-ball, but, as per rules credited to the batsman (Shewag in this case).

Thanks

Rehman

Are you sure that is the case? Surely if the ball is declared dead and that ball made up one of the 100 then it means Sehwag only played 99.

Other than that, the rules need to be looked at. A six should be seen as more difficult from a no-ball so that should take precedence over the one run. Or maybe give both. Perhaps view a successful shot off a no-ball the same as the 20-20 free hit.

For a four, the rule should remain the same. If the batsmen have crossed in the middle to win the match (or obviously will do) then the fielders are far less likely to try to stop the ball crossing the boundary so that shouldn't count as a four. But sixes are different.

As a matter of fact, no rule states that the ball is dead after the no ball is bowled. Sehwag had completed his century in 99 balls. It was the error on the part of the 'Sri Lankan' scorers that they didn't count those runs> Either they were ignorant of the rules, or they did the stuff deliberately to stop Sehwag from getting a century. Randiv and Sangakkara do not entirely deserve all the blame.

The Rule states that-

Runs resulting from a No ball

The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.

Thus, the six should have been credited to Sehwag had it been hit in any other part of the world, but not in Sri Lanka, where the fans and support staff are even more losers and unsporting than the players themselves.

Yes it should be credited..rules need to be reconsidered and re-written. Here is the explanation

So it is now open season on Suraj Randiv, who bowled the no-ball that ‘denied’ Virender Sehwag a century he truly deserved (In contrast to those knocks where he blazes away from ball one, on this particular occasion Sehwag absorbed the loss of his colleagues at the other end, battled with the demons of the pitch and atmosphere, revealed an unsuspected ability to do the grind, and fulfilled the fantasies of millions of Indian fans who, ever since the swashbuckler made his debut, have lusted after the possibility that one day, he will bat through an innings). It is also open season on Kumar Sangakkara, the Sri Lankan captain, who if the transcription of words picked up from the stump mike is to believed, reminded Randiv, just as he prepared to bowl the decisive ball, that “If he hits it, he gets the run”.

Here is what happened, pure and simple: Randiv bowled. The umpire called ‘no-ball’. There is a reason the umpire calls it as soon as a bowler bowls one – it is to let the batsman know that there are no real penalties attached to having a go. A batsman, on hearing that call, knows he can have a swing without running the risk of being bowled, caught, declared LBW.

So Randiv bowled. The umpire called. Sehwag had a swing, and despatched the ball over the ropes.

That is seven runs added to the total – one to the team total as an extra, the other six to Sehwag, the batsman who was quick to seize on the opportunity. Simple.

This is where the idiocy of umpires comes in: How could the game be over as soon as Randiv over-stepped? A ball, to be deemed bowled, has to be delivered; the batsman has to play/miss it; in the case of the former the ball has to be retrieved while the batsman runs, or not…there is no provision in cricket for declaring a result, and ending a match, at some intermediate stage of this process.

Thus, for umpires to declare that the game was over as soon as Randiv overstepped is plain folly. To understand this, consider a hypothetical situation: Randiv bowls. It is a no-ball. Sehwag decides the game is over, lets the ball go and walks off. Sangakkara collects and whips off the bails.

Is the batsman out? Of course he is. The extra run cannot be counted until the ball in question is officially dead; in our example Sehwag left his crease while the ball was in play, therefore he is out.

So, if his dismissal off a no ball counts, why were the runs he scored off that no ball not counted to his name?

The question, simplified: How could the umpires, or the scorers, or both, consider the match over before the ball had completed its necessary course?

Read Law 24 (No ball)

Runs resulting from a No ball

The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.

Where is the ambiguity? The law clearly says that any runs completed by the batsman, or a boundary allowance, off a no ball shall be credited to the striker.

Sehwag ‘completed’ a sixer. His score – unless the scorer is a congenital idiot – should have been 105. End of story.

The key is to understand that a game is not declared over midway through a cricketing action – which is the space between a ball being ‘live’ and being ‘dead’. Consider this example: India needs one run to win. Sehwag whacks the ball high in the air. While the ball is in the air, the batsman cross over and complete a run. The ball comes down, and is caught.

Is the game over, simply because the batsmen had crossed while the ball was in the air, and had not yet been caught? No, the verdict in this case would be, the batsman is out, the run doesn’t count. So clearly, runs and results are not declared at some arbitrary point while the ball is live – such a determination happens only after the ball is ‘dead’.

It is not the intention of this post to ‘excuse’ what Randiv did, or what Sangakkara asked him to do. That action was clearly unsporting, childish, petty. Here was one of the great batsman of the modern era, in challenging conditions, digging deep within himself to play a match-winning innings that was contrary to type. A gracious opposition would have admired, applauded; instead, the Lankans appear to have conspired to score a childish ‘victory’.

Fair enough. What beats us, though, is this: Why is there, amidst all this noise, no attempt to question the outcome declared by the scorers? Why is there no debate on the central question? Where were the umpires, the match referee? And where, incidentally, was the Indian team management that it did not think to question the scorers’ declared result?

You're right. If the ball is credited in the Sehwag's account then why not the runs? And if the ball is declared dead after the No ball call, then why is it credited towards Randiv's account? The ball is already dead and dead balls are not counted in the bowler's account. For every debit there should be a credit. That means if one is giving something then another one is clearly taking something. Why is it recorded in one side's account? If the ball is counted both in the bowler's and batsman's account then the batsman should get those runs. No doubt about that.

@Sanga, Did not expect this answer from you,not from you, just because an Indian has given wrong answer to your question. The asker has just asked whether its right or not?

What is his fault, he did his bit, if a no ball at any stage of the match is counted for all the runs scored off it, then the case should be the same for the last ball of the match,its for ICC to correct this particular point, which I have never seen before, so then all the previous centuries scored with a last ball six of the match, including win for the team should not be credited to the batsmen either.

Thankfully its a small matter of personal milestone, otherwise cheats have taken their teams to the world cup finals with hand helped goals (France- Henry) & goal prevented off the line with deliberate hand ball, (Paraguay against Nigeria or some other African team) but sports governing bodies wake up too late & never do the needful, its only remembered for a short while, until it happens again !!

Technically, it is "ONE DELIVERY - From the point Ball is Delivered at one end to it's Travel to the other end of the wicket when the ball is dead either through a hit by batsman or collection by the keeper". For a ball to be deemed effective any cricketing acts associated with the ball at both the ends shall count.

I think that the six should be credited to Sehwag. Because that would give him another century. But what can we do about it "Rule is Rule". But I heard in the news that yesterday night Rnadiv went to Sehag's room beg him for forgiveness for that no ball.

Should Be Credited To In Sehwag Account.

SLC, Sanga & R@ndi Have To Give Written Request

And Written Apoplogies To ICC For Their Mistakes.

normally the runs scored on a no ball are counted, this shouldn't be done like that, on a match finishing no ball it shouldn't be taken as the runs scored are not counted by batsman.

anyways doesn't matter, sehwag is much bigger stature guy than all these petty cheap shot taking low rated classical losers ! SL have become a facet of all born losers and non-sporting people across the globe.