Talk:Stump (cricket)

Reference for Note on dismissing a batsman stumped
Where can I find a legitimate source to corroborate the following note? "The wicket-keeper must break the wicket either with the ball or with the hand that is holding it, or that arm, or with both hands together; holding the ball in one hand and breaking the wicket with the other will not do." -Deepraj | Talk 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lords Cricket Ground. I believe Law 28.1 (v) hits the mark: Wicket put down. The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground, by a fielder with his hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used. The wicket is also put down if a fielder strikes or pulls a stump out of the ground in the same manner.
 * http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-28-the-wicket-is-down,54,AR.html
 * Thedoctor98 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stumped off a no-ball
The article currently states " A batsman may be out stumped off a no ball", but Law 24.15 of cricket clearly state that a batsman *cannot* be out, stumped off a no ball. http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html Thedoctor98 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has had any objections to the change, I'll make the edit. Thedoctor98 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Stumped vs Run Out
In a recent (2013/14) match -- SA vs Aus? -- a batsman was out of his ground, and missed the ball (not a wide) which was caught by a fielder who put down the wicket exactly as a wicket keeper would (and noting that modern keepers go so far back that they're mingling with the slips). Even though he was clearly not attempting a run (bye) he was dismissed "run out". Is that worth an entry in the article? Alanf777 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

middle stump effect on play
I was researching a Regency novel and learned that middle stump was not required at that time, not even in the original rules. How does it affect play if there's no middle stump? From a dumb Yank. 71.178.191.144 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Zing bails controversy
A number of international cricketers have criticized the Zing Bails incidents, so that in itself is notable: https://au.sports.yahoo.com/cricket-world-cup-controversy-bails-farce-231556901.html. The fact that the ICC had to publicly defend their usage in the World Cup is also notable: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-world-cup-zing-bails-becoming-a-weighty-issue-but-they-wont-be-changed-wsvl3k2pv. The manufacturer has also commented saying they feel the "recent cluster" is an "unusual spate" and will be reviewed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/06/11/manufacturers-zing-bails-left-surprised-world-cup-problems-will/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekApple123 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement that “majority of dismissals involve stumps”…
…is both ungrammatical and incorrect. (Test match stats, for example, suggest that more than 55% of batters are out caught, and LBW accounts for another 15%. Thus only 30% is left for all the other ways of going out.)

Also, hit wicket is a mode of dismissal that involves dislodging a bail or uprooting a stump. It’s not just bowled+stumped+run out that are stump-related dismissals. 86.136.1.98 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)