During Sunday’s ICC Women’s World Cup clash between India and Pakistan , a moment of confusion arose over the dismissal of Pakistan batter Muneeba Ali. The incident occurred in the fourth over of Pakistan’s innings.
Muneeba had survived an appeal for LBW, but immediately afterwards, the ball deflected to Deepti Sharma at slip. Observing that Muneeba was outside her crease, Deepti threw down the stumps. After a lengthy review, Muneeba was adjudged out because her bat was not grounded behind the popping crease at the moment the bails were removed.
To understand the decision, it is important to consider several Laws of cricket. The first point is that the ball was still live despite the earlier LBW appeal. Just because a player or umpire appeals for LBW, it does not mean the ball becomes dead.
In this case, the appeal was answered Not Out, the ball had not yet settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper, and Deepti’s actions demonstrated that the play was still active.
The key question then was whether Muneeba was in her ground when the stumps were broken. Evidence clearly showed that her bat was airborne at the moment the bails were removed. Some observers wondered whether Law 30.1.2, introduced in 2010 and often called the ‘bouncing bat Law,’ might apply.
This Law states that a batter shall not be considered out of their ground if, while running or diving towards the crease, their bat or body temporarily loses contact with the ground after having grounded it behind the popping crease.
However, this protection only applies to batters who are actively moving toward their ground. In Muneeba’s case, she was stationary, having taken her guard beyond the popping crease. Her feet did not move back into the crease, and the bat was lifted into the air without any attempt to run.
The Law is designed to protect batters who unintentionally lose contact with the ground while running or diving, not those who simply lift their bat or overbalance while stationary. By this reasoning, the third umpire was correct in giving her out.
There was also a question about the mode of dismissal. Since Muneeba was not attempting a run, should she have been stumped instead of run out? The correct ruling is Run out. This is because she was not taking a run, and the stumps were broken by a fielder, not the wicket-keeper acting alone. The ball was live, there was no no-ball, and the action involved the fielder throwing down the stumps. Under these conditions, the umpires’ decision of Run out was entirely correct.
Muneeba had survived an appeal for LBW, but immediately afterwards, the ball deflected to Deepti Sharma at slip. Observing that Muneeba was outside her crease, Deepti threw down the stumps. After a lengthy review, Muneeba was adjudged out because her bat was not grounded behind the popping crease at the moment the bails were removed.
To understand the decision, it is important to consider several Laws of cricket. The first point is that the ball was still live despite the earlier LBW appeal. Just because a player or umpire appeals for LBW, it does not mean the ball becomes dead.
In this case, the appeal was answered Not Out, the ball had not yet settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper, and Deepti’s actions demonstrated that the play was still active.
The key question then was whether Muneeba was in her ground when the stumps were broken. Evidence clearly showed that her bat was airborne at the moment the bails were removed. Some observers wondered whether Law 30.1.2, introduced in 2010 and often called the ‘bouncing bat Law,’ might apply.
This Law states that a batter shall not be considered out of their ground if, while running or diving towards the crease, their bat or body temporarily loses contact with the ground after having grounded it behind the popping crease.
However, this protection only applies to batters who are actively moving toward their ground. In Muneeba’s case, she was stationary, having taken her guard beyond the popping crease. Her feet did not move back into the crease, and the bat was lifted into the air without any attempt to run.
The Law is designed to protect batters who unintentionally lose contact with the ground while running or diving, not those who simply lift their bat or overbalance while stationary. By this reasoning, the third umpire was correct in giving her out.
There was also a question about the mode of dismissal. Since Muneeba was not attempting a run, should she have been stumped instead of run out? The correct ruling is Run out. This is because she was not taking a run, and the stumps were broken by a fielder, not the wicket-keeper acting alone. The ball was live, there was no no-ball, and the action involved the fielder throwing down the stumps. Under these conditions, the umpires’ decision of Run out was entirely correct.
You may also like
Jaipur ICU blaze: Hospital staff ignored early warnings and fled when fire spread, say patients' kin
How did South Carolina judge Diane Goodstein's beach house catch fire? Viral video shows waterbody nearby
UP: CM Yogi praises PM's women empowerment schemes; announces LPG supply, textile park
MUDA scam case: ED attaches 34 more properties worth over Rs 40 crore
'Israel was hurting after October 7 - but we want the suffering in Gaza to end'
