Test Match Special - Ask the Umpire.

Episode Date: August 26, 2022

Identical twins, pony tails and rogue terriers. John Holder joins Jonathan Agnew and Vic Marks for “Ask the Umpire”

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. The Dakar Rally is the ultimate off-road challenge. Perfect for the ultimate defender. The high-performance Defender Octa, 626 horsepower twin turbo V8 engine and intelligent 6D dynamics air suspension. Learn more at landrover.ca. BBC Sounds, music, radio, podcast. You're listening to the TMS podcast.

from BBC Radio 5 Live It's such a popular slotless There's a fair amount of imagination used As well as we know And I was saying yesterday on the radio It was because we had inevitably There'll be a question about beards somewhere come up But because of that one about the beards touching the boundary

In the Commonwealth Games I was doing a women's game There's a magnificent dive actually on the boundary edge By a pony-tailed fielder Who did everything right except at the vital moment her ponytail touched the boundary edge four runs

I'm part of her person four runs and I thought straight away of you and I thought straight away of Keith Flett who's our friend who always said these ridiculous questions about beards but however there you go and actually I was on at the time and I knew the rule

because of these I was immediately able to say oh no the pony tails touched the boundary edge at the same time that she had the ball on her hand yeah boundary four runs so whether I mean women's cricket

there's a lot of ponytails in women's cricket There's a few ponytail's in men's creek Dagnall used to have one Yeah, not quite as long as these I don't think, but they may have to review I introduce a team policy of no ponytails or something to have a really tight tight one day game

Anyway, go on Victor I was just going to actually ask a question that isn't a puzzler for him I was thinking about yesterday and you remember when Robinson happens quite often took a wicket, so it seemed, caught short leg, and then no ball. And all I was going to ask John just to sort of ease us into it

is that how often, when you were umpiring, would you tell the bowler, look, you're getting close here, or would you have conversations with the bowler about where that front foot was landing? I know the answer to that because I've bowled with John many times. Yes, well, I think I know the answer to it, but it's a bit. worth knowing that, you know, how it operates, or certainly how it operated when you were standing, your relationship

with a fast bowler, you'd have a word, would you? Yeah, my job as an umpire was not to get anybody. If I saw someone close to transgressing, I'd have a quick word. If you're getting close to no bowling, I would say, look, you're getting close on the crease. Come back a little bit. Then if you go up there and step over,

then you get no balled. But you're never looking to catch players out. And by the same... I concur with that. You've often said that to me. Yeah. And you would be asking John. Yeah, where am I?

Am I close? And it's funny because when we talk about that, we often get messages and stuff. But for people saying, you shouldn't say anything. That shouldn't be that sort of relationship. And of course, there must be that sort of relationship. You want to keep the game moving.

It's just important. And you can't see where you're landing often as a bowler. So you rely on the unparas. Come on. Let's get back a bit. And you try and do it. If you don't, no ball, that's it. But there is that dialogue all the time.

And it's important that there is. I feel, I've always felt that is important for umpires to have a good relationship with players. And if the players know that you're not looking to get them. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Mike Gatting as a batsman would quite often come in, playing for Middlesex,

will say to me quite often, tell me if I'm bringing my bat down straight. And I would say, yes, your bat is coming down from gully or it's coming down straight. Yeah, I say yes. And I don't see, you're not coaching him. No. You just ask a simple question.

Well, I wonder, actually, is whether the modern umpires would have that conversation so frequently. I have no idea. I have no idea. I do have, I heard, because we get the pitch mics next door, Stuart Broad talking to Richard Lillingworth yesterday. Because he bowled a couple of no balls. And he said, where am I, where am I? What's happening? And so Richard would say, well, you're quite close.

Actually, that's better. That's better way you are now. That's fine, isn't it? That's the right way to do it? Everyone's involved in the game, and you want the game to move smoothly, don't you? That's right. All right. Andy Flood from London starts us off

Great to have a second Ask the Unpower of the summer Here's my query You might At the end of the first sentence You might get an idea of where this one's going Two identical twins Are batting together

In a crucial fourth innings run chase Don't close your eyes and look like that John One, a fairly useless number nine With only rabbits to follow The other, the team star batsman and the last chance to secure victory in the over before lunch.

I'm not quite sure what it should be, but anyway, the star batsman holds out. Fielding team a cock, a hoop as they go off the interval, a wicket having fallen in the over. When the players return, the remaining twin soon plays a glorious cover drive for four. Instantly suspicious, the fielding captain approaches you, the umpire,

claiming that the wrong twin has come back out to bat. What are you going to do? No, that is a problem because if you can't decide who is who, how are you going to say that the wrong batsman or the right batsman is batting? If you don't, you've just got to depend on the honesty of the batting side. Right. And if you can't, if you can't say that this person, that the wrong person is batting, you don't have a quick identity parade or something like that.

You could demand passport, persistently. That wouldn't help. wouldn't it, but you wouldn't know who's holding it. You've got to talk to the batting captain and hope that the players are honest enough that the right person is batting. Well, it's a change from calling dead ball, which is your normal response to these matters.

Well, this one's more straightforward, I think. And more likely to happen, perhaps, but it's from Paul Adams. He says a team needs one run to win with nine wickets down and the scores are level. if the last batsman is out stumped off a wide does that mean the batting side has won the match

if so by what by zero wickets because the batting side has won because the wide counts first before yes so as soon as the wide is called the match is over one run and if I happen to be scoring that match obviously there is a batsman who he was stumped he wasn't stumped because the batch is over the match is over so he is not out whatever it is

you're won by you've won by one wicket okay okay well does that ever see that happen no but that is the reality I've been asked the question it's like a no ball too isn't it if a no ball is probably you've obviously seen people stumped off a wide though have you in your time but the wide the wide

comes first when it comes to the result of the match the white comes first. And it's worth saying that if someone bowls a no ball and blows a stumps out of the ground in the same situation, the no ball comes first. Absolutely. So the game is over. The game is over.

Yeah. Okay. Now then, here's Alan. Alan course. It says, I umpire on the lower divisions of the Sussex cricket league. Now, this, I can relate to this because this happened with a very well-known captain of England, Ray Illingworth. Brackett's dear friend, but was never out, closed by.

brackets. Earlier this season, I was standing in a match where there was a spin bowler who grunted very, very loudly when he delivered the ball. Think Monica Selesh in tennis. A couple of o'was into his spell, he got the batsman caught behind. As he walked past me back to the pavilion, the batsman said to me, I played the grunt, not the ball. It made me think, says Alan, should I have cautioned the bowler? And if so, under which law? There is no such law. I mean, the law here you're talking about distraction. If the bowler just routinely grunts on delivery,

there's no distraction. It's got to be intentional. It's a really big grunt. It's a really big grunt. It's a really big grunt. If this is something which is standard and previous deliveries is grunted and nothing has happened, the fact that the backman is out is of no.

doesn't really matter. If I say A.A. Jones to you. Yes, I know. Alan Arthur Jones. Proper grunter. So the incident I'm referring to was Hartman, which county, many counties as old Alan was playing for at the time.

But he ran in down the hill at Grace Road and, as always, he had a terrific grunt to Railingworth, who played a hideous shot. There's stumps went everywhere. And he came off, sat down in the dressing room, I thought, bloody a park called no ball. He thought it was a no ball. He thought it was the best excuse

I bet if he hit it for four, he would have been quite happy. Oh, of course. Yeah, absolutely. That's one of Ray's many excuses for getting out. I'm not sure I even heard close he used. Is that a good grunt, though, didn't he? Oh, yeah. A good um, a good um, Howard Wilson says,

I have a question provoked by yesterday's play. Jack, which you saw a bit of yesterday's play. I know, John, you were watching bits and pieces, right? Jack Leach was bowling and folks was, Up to the stumps, the batsman under edge, and the ball was dropped, okay? But he asked, had folks drop the ball, what I mean, I think he means by not taking the ball cleanly, and it deflected onto the stumps, dislodging the bales,

but then made a second attempt at the catch and caught the ball before it was grounded. Is that out? Out, the ball hasn't touched the ground. So it can ricochet off the stumps. Yep. And he can be still out-court. That's right.

Okay. That handles that. We're rattling through these today, John. David Miller writes, I'm a keen young cricketer in Sherwood Cricket Club's first 11, but a broken finger has put an abrupt end to my season. That's a shame, bad like David.

I'm still going along to watch most weekends, but I've been roped into umpiring tomorrow in our game away to head corn cricket club. It's my first umpouring at that level, and I fear that I may be a little out of my depth, So I'd like to ask John Holder What he would advise on the law Surrounding

Our opener was mancadded Just a few weeks ago It led to some dispute Which I'd rather not have to deal with Any advice on mancads And his opinion on their effect on the game We were very interesting And may be useful

The law has changed, of course, recently Yes, it'll come into effect From the 1st of October But the non-striker Has no right to leave his ground until the bowler has, before the bowlers

released the ball. Now it used to be, I think it's changed again, but it used to be when the bowler was in his delivery stride. So before that, you couldn't leave your ground. No, man cadding really is,

to me, it gets exaggerated. Who is leaving the person, according to the laws, you've got to ask, which of the two people the bowler or the backsman is trying to get an unfair advantage. The only reason why bats, non-strikers leave the ground early

is to gain a few yards. It's illegal. And I agree that bowlers should run batsmen out who leave the ground prematurely. No warning? No warning. Look, you can back up quite comfortably by watching the ballers as he runs in with your batting the ground and you can be outside the ground

but your bat is grounded and you can watch the bowler and as the bowler gets close to the stumps you can move with him but nowadays lots of batsmen stand at the bowler's end non-striker stand at the bowler's end where they're back completely to the bowler

they've no idea they've got the baton here they have no idea where the bowler is and they're leaving the ground early that's illegal the law is now it's going to be man cadet is completely legal. It always has been.

This non-striker has no right to leave his ground early. They won't be using mancadding as a description either actually. No, there's also some offence I should cause by that, hasn't there? People feel that that's not, that it's not fair. I hate the sight, though, of a bowler

trying deliberate to run somebody out like that. To almost let the ball go and they come back and not the bailout. You can't do that. You can't do that. But by the same token, non-strikers deliberately, especially when the game is a close game. It's set off.

It's set off early with one intention only to get down there as quickly as possible. And that is not right. The fact is, Dave, as far as the law is concerned, just to put you at rest, you are legitimately run out. If the bowler runs you out, when he's bowling the ball, basically.

If the non-striker has left his crease, then that's it. It's always been viewed as being unfair. It is. The only unfairness is the non-strike leaving his ground. I just want to, in your long career, did you ever have occasion to give someone out? No.

From that. Not once in 27 years or whatever. Not once. But, I mean, but it has happened. It's happened been more frequently. Obviously, Ashwin and Butler had their moments, didn't they? And there was the under 19 World Cup final. Of course, yes.

Which finished with a man. There was a one day international, I think, think it was Sri Lanka in India and Billy Bowden and... There's Josh Butler against Sri Lanka Edgebaston.

Right. I suppose more and more one day cricket inevitably leads to more and more man-cadding opportunities. But as I said there's no reason

why the non-striker can't watch the bowler running up. With his bat in the ground. Let us say you're right. Batting in your back hand in one hand and you're watching the bowler run up

and as he gets close to the wicket you start to move forward but your bat is still on the ground that's not I'm going to say because every youngster will be taught when you're backing up you start backing up with the bowler I think the Joss Butler one against Sri Lanka

I remember getting quite cross about because he was just moving with the momentum of the game and so the bowler just waited a moment it left his ground bang ran him out so what do you do you're now telling youngsters that actually you don't move with the bowler because that natural momentum is actually taking you out of your ground at the moment

that you expect him to let the ball go But you can still move with the bowler, but you've got to make sure that... He or she has let the ball go. It's tricky for an umpire, though, because you've got to be able to gauge if the bowler's sort of completely his action, but held onto the ball.

Yeah, because you're watching the pop increase initially for the front foot, yeah. Okay, well, as often these things, these situations occur with the side nine wickets down, don't there? We've got one here from David Fradley. And he said, this situation occurred at our club match on Saturday. And I'd love to know the answer. The game was in the closing stages.

My team were nine wickets down, still needing another 20 to win. One batsman set on 49 not out, and he goes for a big shot over extra cover, which is caught by the fielder at deep extra cover, a good 10 yards inside the boundary. But the fielder then, in his celebration, runs straight over the boundary with the ball still in his hand. a heated debate then took place with the batsman eventually being given out in the game ending with us falling 20 runs short

but what he's asking is that if the if he's caught the ball then sprinted off the field in his celebration is he out or could he possibly claim to get a six the umpire has got to decide whether having caught the ball

he was in full control of of where he went, of his further movement. Okay. So in that case, in the umpire's opinion, he'd caught the ball and just continued running, but could have gone in any direction, then it's out. The ball is he's under control.

Well, that sounds right to me. So, yeah, he's in control of the ball. And having demonstrated he's in control of the ball, he can go anywhere he likes. That's right, that's right. Mr. Jeffries has emailed regarding the identical twins dilemma. surely the solution to the wrong twin coming out is simple

you give the fielding captain the right to change the batsman to the other twin if the batting team have changed over their twins as suspicions would suggest the fielding team gets the bad batsman batting if the batting team has behaved honourably they gain by having the better twin batting from then on that's rather clever

Mr. Jeffries I don't know your Christian date that actually would be the solution wouldn't that? He should actually join the Where's your white coat? He should actually join the umpires He should

Become a member of the MCC Making the Laws of Cricket Well yeah But it's a Machiavellian solution And I like this idea Because I mean there've been a few Identical Twins playing cricket Although the marshals at New Zealand

They're both batsmen anyway But I'm just thinking If I'm captain of the batting I've got a bellow at them If one twin is using a grey nickels and the other's using a gun and more, you've got to yell out and make sure you swap bats as well. Very good point.

Duncan Matheson, hello, I play for a 20-over team on a Wednesday evening for the South Northamance Cricket Club at Bugbrook in Northamptonshire. There was an interesting situation in the last match and it went like this. The batsman hit the ball through point and set off for a quick single. The fielder collected the ball and threw it at the stumps at the opposite end, so the non-striker's end.

The ball glanced the stumps before the batsman was in his crease, but the bales, although dislodged, stayed on. The ball ran away past the stumps. The batsman took off for another run, so an overthrow. Just after the batsman left the crease, the bales fell. This is a true story, apparently. The batsman continued and completed their second run. Empire, brackets, the facing batsman's brother, close brackets. This is where the slightly sinister element comes in here.

Gave this batsman out, run out. So he gave his brother out. Was it correct? What should have happened? I'm not sure if a run was credited or not. I have to check the scorebook. It regards Duncan Matheson. So he's hit the stumps of the throw.

Bales, I guess, sort of tentatively are dislodged and they're just sort of hanging on. Go for the second and plop comes off. Well, the reality is the law doesn't say anything

about how long or how short it should take for the bills to actually be dislodged completely. So it's got to be out. Got to be out. Yeah, absolutely. Even if he's a brother.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a ruthless but logical decision. You're supposed to be completely neutral, brother or no brother. I mean, if there was a strong gust of wind, isn't it? At the same time. I mean, if you decide that it's the wind that has removed the bails, you know, it's a big windy day, you just...

Slightly dislodge bails, and the gust has taken them off. That's tough, is it? Absolutely. Yeah. There you go. Well, whoever that was, Duncan, who made that unpowering decision, they did well, actually, unless he's had to fall out with his brother. I did it for alternative reasons.

Except they're not talking to the family is driven apart. Yeah, fair enough. Well, here's, it's not really, it's just an inquiry. It's from John, from North Fleet in Kent. And he just asked, what's the most unusual tool that you've heard that has been used for counting the balls in and over? I mean, isn't it just... Chris Gaffler's got quite a big...

Has he? Yeah, I think it's, well, I'm assuming it's his ball counter. Quite a big red and white one that he holds. Okay. Some umpires have like a clicker. Yeah. And not only do they register the balls. They actually register the runs as well.

Oh, really? So there's a splicker with two parts to it. Wow, yeah, yeah. I used, I used to use coins. I went to Portugal back in the late 80s, and I had some eskudos, and the 50 escudo coin was roughly the same size as the 50 pence coin.

And I found those very comfortable, so I use them for the rest of my career. But people, different people, They use different things. Pebbles? For those who can't spare any cash. Some used to... A few umpires like that I came across.

Some of the umpires used to use little wotany red barrels. Oh yes. It's what you feel comfortable with. Where are you a scudo? Is there a little box somewhere? I've got him at home. Treasured. Worn.

Yeah. Right, Chris Gaunt from Hebden Bridge. If a player makes a noise when they play the ball, like Joe Root, saying, oh no, when he was dismissed yesterday, can they be given out for obstructing the field by destructing the field as well I guess there's no point in Brute's case

because it's out anyway wasn't he but it's a exclamation knowing that you're out really isn't it obstruction has got to be seen to be intentional by the umpire umpires are generally physical well whatever it can be verbal

absolutely I mean for example if if the striker hits the wall in the air and is about to be called and the non-striker says leave it its mind and then the umpire realized that it was deliberate then you can be given up

you take an appeal someone must appeal someone must appeal absolutely yeah yeah I mean I remember actually when I was bowling and you'd have a silly point

and possibly a forward short leg and I bowled a board I knew it was going to be a nasty foothos I remember shouting watch it to my silly point and I think possibly on one occasion I mean I got the wicket this well-intentioned watch it to my captain at silly point

may have slightly disturbed the batsman's concentration and somehow he missed it and I think he had to go but I think he might have been a bit disgruntled but it was an innocent though it wasn't a purpose I mean I was trying to save my silly point rather than off put the batsman off anyway that's by the bye this is from Adam Stern

and it relates to sort of the heat wave we've been having a bit because he says on one of the hottest days of the year with drinks being taken all the while the umpire sensibly brought a water bottle out to the middle with him

and to avoid holding the water bottle all day he placed it near but not touching the base of the stumps where he was standing early in the second innings the batters take a quick single causing the fielder to shy at the non-striker's stumps

the ball hits the umpire's water bottle and deflects to the boundary. Neither the ball or the water bottle strike the stumps or dislodge the bales. How many runs are scored? So let me hear that again. You've got the umpire, I think, has stationed this water bottle.

So they've run? How many runs of their run? Probably one. I would guess they might have won one, but there is a hurl at the stumps. It hits the water bottle, but not the stumps, and is ricochets deflected to the boundary? The water bottle shouldn't have been there in the first place. But there's a heat wave.

No, the water bottle shouldn't have been there in the first place. Okay, but it was there. Yeah, okay. So the umpire, the umpire should call dead ball. He should. Ah, absolutely. I mean, he has done that something illegal. Right.

Because he should not put the water bottle on it. It shouldn't have been there in the first place. So it might be dead ball and one run that might have been completed? That's right. I mean, the field inside should not be penalised by an umpire having done an illegal act and then gaining from it, that shouldn't happen. Well, he adds, actually, just out of interest, the umpire initially went for what you've just said, dead ball and one run.

But after objection by the batting team's captain, reference to the laws, he said, in consultation, discussion at the 22 over drinks break, the decision was changed to one run plus four overthrows, and you're saying that's not correct. Absolutely. It should have been one. Head ball, that's it, end of it. So probably you'll have to replay the match.

I'm proud decision is final. I like this one. John Davies, hello John in Norfolk. The ball is bold. The batsman misses it and it's taken by the wicket keeper standing up to the stumps. The wicket keeper

immediately turns his back and the batsman thinking the keeper has missed it too sets off for a run but the keeper turns round breaks the wicket and appeals for the runout clearly the batsman is out but would you give him out after this display of low cunning which is obviously not in the spirit of the game if in the umpire's opinion

he thinks that the vicar keeper is trying to con the batsman then then you've got to to call dead ball. You can't do that. You can't do that. It's got to be a genuine wicketkeeper catches the ball. In everybody's opinion, the ball is dead. Once the keeper's caught it, there's no attempt.

But he can't just hide or just turn his back. And then pretend he hasn't got the ball. And then break the wicket. No. So not out. Not out. And a lecture to the keeper are telling off. Can you get penalized? Gamesmanship. Can you penalize him? You can report him.

Okay. You can report. What happens in this happens quite often in the field there it's you know sort of square of the wicket and ball's hit quite hard and the bloc at square leg he kind of dives in the certain knowledge he's never going to get anywhere near the ball to suggest to the say the non-striker that he might have got it it's a sort of mock dive given that the ball is probably about 10 yards from where he is that gamesmanship so that and that's another lecture is absolutely oh okay that's a that is actually that is that that That actually...

That actually... Yeah. It's five penalty runs. Oh, right. Yeah, yeah. Attempt to deceive the batting side. That's five penalty runs. It's illegal.

Oh, I'd like to see that happen. That would stir it up, wouldn't it, at the end of a one-day match? But you do see that happen that people sort of fake... You know, they dive in a certain knowledge, they're not going to stop it, just to try and deter the batsman from setting off. The first person I saw do that was Dermot Rave. Well, there's a surprise. Dermot Rieff, Captain in Warwickshire, Edgbaston.

He was the first person I saw do that. I mean, can I go off a... Because Dermot Rieve, do you remember when Dervet Rieve was batting against a spinner, left-arm spinner bowling over the wicket, into the rock, Warrichshire, Rajmaru. And he... Threw his bat. Through his bat.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, because you can't be caught off the glove if you're not holding the bat. And there was quite a kerfuffle about whether he could do this. So then I asked myself, what if the fielding captain had reinforced his offside field? So there was no, there was a slip, second gully, silly point. So that if Dermot Reed threw his bat on the offside, he's bound to be obstructing the field because there's so many fielders there. So would that have deterred, could you have stopped him throwing his bat by having so many fielders on the offside that if he threw it, he'd hit someone?

Because, I mean, that again, that's a case of graemanship. Okay. Yeah. He was a great lateral thinker, Dermotry. Oh, he was. He was different. And mischief. It was different. Can I just put this following?

Because it's a quite good, very simple question. If a player's glasses fall off and a slodge of bails, is he out hit wicked? It's steep. Part of his person. You're out? It's part of his person, yeah. If a cat falls off and hit the wicket, you're out. And if glasses fall off, any part of your person

falls, breaks the wicket, you're out. There you go. I mean, that's quite an interesting question. Well, I was, I don't know if it's in there, or you might have it, but it's sort of the same sort of thing. But you know how you're caught off the glove, so you can be caught off the Velcro at the top of your glove. What happens if you've got a very long-sleeved shirt,

it's slightly too big for you, and you buckle it up, and it practically goes down to your, knuckle, can that reduce the areas in which you can be caught? The question is... If it hits the shirt and not the glove, even if the shirt's too big for you? Well, if it hits the shirt, you shouldn't be given out, really. But, I mean, the question is,

can the umpire see that, has he got that sort of ex-revision to be able to say that it hit the shirt rather than just the glove here? He could review it these days, though. Oh, you can on television, but the thing is... But then I suppose if you... The problem, the thing, though, is that the laws of...

were made not just for television. So the actual umpiring on the village green, without TV access to TV cameras, should be able to use the laws as well. If you come out on a massive shirt anyway. I mean, there's probably a few suspicions raised, aren't there? Spirit of the game. Yes.

Go and change his shirt. Or just do something with the sleeves. You can't do that. Right. Now, you can't remember this, but from Mark Hill, talking about the village green. Both sets of villagers, seated in deck chairs,

I think he's setting the scene here, including the wife of one of the players who had a small white terrier tied to the leg of her chair. The dog clearly had designs on the ball, was watching it roll around the outfield with malicious intent. They batted first. Come the end of the game, we needed something like 10 to win with our number three still at the crease

when number 10 was bold. I pushed out, went out there. with instructions just to hit it and let him do the rest. As the ballers ran up, I closed my eyes and swung. We started to run through for a single as the ball came to rest in the outfield. It was at this point that the small white terrier became detached from its deck chair,

sprinting onto the field, it grabbed the ball, did a full circuit of the outfield from cheers from the fielding side, before depositing the ball at the feet of its mail owner who was fielding in the slips. The umpires called Dead Ball, insisted I returned to the strikers end, even though we had completed our run, and the ball had not touched the rope when it came to a stop.

I was bold next ball and we lost the game. I mean, was he unlucky? I mean, could he have got more runs? It's an extraordinary story. It's a lot to be a spectator, wouldn't you? The fact that... The ball is in the terrier's mouth. The dog runs onto the field of play

when the ball is, and catches the ball, but it's life. so the field inside immediately are at a disadvantage so you can't have access to the ball so you've got to call dead ball right and then you have to adjudge whether they've completed the single before the dog

got a ball in his mouth yeah okay it's a lovely scenario isn't it I mean there's a similar one here Graham Lawton a champagne cork is lying about two metres

from the boundary edge the batsman hits the ball which is slowing up in the outfield when it hits the cork and ends up falling just short of the boundary it would have gone for four the batsman crossed for three

how many runs are awarded and I ask this as Greg because I was in the mound stand at Lords on the third and last day against South Africa and I saw a cork actually I'll walk past the Graham and know exactly where you were I saw a cork in the outfield

so situation could have arisen a fielder actually removed that cork he said so what happens there I honestly don't see us if a ball is rolling with a little bit of momentum I can't see a champagne cork really stopping the ball from carrying on to the boundary

I mean the cork is so light I can't see it stopping the ball from going on to the boundary I think he thinks there's a stupid question well there were lots of corks lying around because I've finished interviewing the captains but they're not that heavy as to really stop the momentum of a ball going towards on the outfield

But if there's a, we're at Lord's, a champagne bottle has been lobbed onto the, and that does it, what would happen then? Well, if in the umpire's opinion the ball would have gone on to the boundary, then it would signal four. All right. Yeah. Okay. This is from Glenn Worrell, who was officiating in a match on Wednesday night.

My, or nonetheless, he says my team was batty and needed five to win from the last two balls. The bowler's follow-through had obstructed my view on a couple of occasions and I told him that he had to move out of the way of sight of my sight or I couldn't give any decision if there was an appeal. On the penultimate ball, the bowler on his follow-through went straight in front of the stumps at the non-strikers ended

and as a result I could see all I could see was the batsman stretching for the ball but not the path of the ball itself. The batsman was adamant that it was a wide but I could not give it without seeing where the ball had actually travelled. We lost the game by one run, having got three on the last ball. Should I have called a dead ball and had the delivery re-bowled?

Because he claims he couldn't see. No, you don't call dead ball. You don't call dead ball for that. You would have, if a bowler is falling through, and obstructing you of you, you'll have a word with him. And then if he continues to follow through, and that happens again, and he might have had a wicket, but you couldn't make an judge. Then he, his ball is, it just...

It sounds odd, doesn't it, that he couldn't see sufficiently to see whether a ball was a wide or not? I had a, well, a wide, yeah. I had a situation years ago, taunting with Glamorgan and Somerset. Peter Robo batting, Rodney-on-Tongue used to follow through, getting close, and stop in front me. And I'd said to him before, I can't see to make a decision. you need to follow through and move off the pitch and he bowled a ball to Peter Roebuck

and there was a noise I think it was edged to either forward short leg or silly point there's an appeal for cash and I said Rodney I can't make a decision because I can't see so I couldn't give the batsman out

let's finish with the twins that's where it started Steve Wilkes surely the simplest solution to this doppelganger's dilemma is to the umpard to take the look at the back of the batsman's underpants to see which name his mother has sold into them

or alternatively Tony Owen says I'm just laughing at this twins question this was a storyline in the archers a few weeks ago and only Oliver Sterling noticed so there you go thank you everybody

as always for all of your emails and everything else that you get it's such a popular section John thanks to you as always to come so far today I think he survived again I think he has and not too many of the safety

just call You're listening to the TMS podcast from BBC Radio 5 Live.