irongloves so that there is no doubt or speculation this is from the MCC website Interpretations points on Law 24 No Ball

24-A Delivery rolling into outfield
What happens if the ball finishes up rolling towards the fielder at extra cover? Can the striker go after the ball and try to play it?
If the ball behaves so abnormally, the first consideration for the umpire is whether it has been delivered or not. He would be justified in considering the ball not delivered if, for example, it travelled backwards out of the bowlers hand or stuck in the bowlers hand so that it hit the ground a yard in front of his feet. These two situations are merely examples to illustrate the principle. The umpire must judge. If he considers that the ball has not been delivered, in this sense, he shall call Dead ball.

If, however, he is satisfied that it has been delivered, the fact that the ball is rolling along the ground means that No ball is to be called in any case under Law 24.6. Beyond this, there are two issues.
Although, as enshrined in Law 40.5 (Restriction on action by the wicket-keeper), the striker has an absolute right to try to play the ball, without interference from the fielding side, this right should not be regarded as extending to any area of the field of play. The game will be brought into disrepute if strikers are allowed to run out to e.g. mid-wicket to hit the ball. It will be for the umpire on the day to decide what is acceptable in this situation. Moreover, when the ball is near a fielder, as implied in this question, an attempt by the striker to hit the ball means risk of injury to the fielder. For both these reasons, the call of No ball should be followed by a call of Dead ball.
Either of the principles set out above could apply separately in appropriate circumstances.
[Law reference: 24.6, 40.5]

So bringing the game into disrepute comes under unfair play and in all such cases the umpire is to call dead ball.

Delivery is not to count in the over and there are no penalty runs. There is however the call of No Ball which gives the batting side a run.

little teaser for umpires:

spinner releases ball in delivery stride in T1 game yesterday and it loops towards mid-wicket. during its trajectory batsman advances towards where ball is headed, but mid-wicket fielder grabs ball and tosses it back to the bowler.

what is the rule?

is the ball considered ''live'' having been delivered, albetit askew?

if it is ''live'', has the batsman been denied the opportunity to smack it (unless, in the spirit of sportsmanship, he chooses to not do so)?

if the batsman was denied a scoring opportunity, what should the runs penalty have been?

the officiating umpire called dead ball. was he correct?

(instant know-alls rushing to consult the laws of cricket book ineligible to answer. this is for bonafide umps who are truthful enough not to consult their little book before answering.)

No need to out yourself Coldie. As you said, the ''ball'' had no bearing on the outcome. My question was based on what I saw as an unusual event in T1 cricket that lent itself to a question, as every second person I have spoken to, including from other clubs and one DDCA honcho, had different interpretations/answers.

Anyway, you umpired well all day. But big lb shocker from the other end. Had young pommi diconsolate; he's come a long way to get two shockers so far this season.

just seen exactly the same situation unfold in England's second innings of the Test against India in Nagpur as what unfolded with a delivery in the Halam v Buckly match that I raised a few posts ago on this tread. The ball slipped from Jadega's hand during delivery and bounced towards mid-wicket and in this case the silly mid-on fielder gave way to Trott as he advanced across the grass and slammed the ball for four! ump got it right: called ''no ball'' and the batsman was allowed to strike the ball. Five runs to England.

Speaking of Hallam, what's happening there? Vorster has apparently stepped down as captain (remember his brief stay at Cranny) and Nick Cox, who was ''retired'' (but stil playing the odd one-dayers) has stepped back into the breach to be captain. He joins Johnny Hammond as the second 'retiree' to resume playing to help out.

Can this possibly be right? Overhead a reliable ketchup with a front-seat view opine that a bloke who scored 160 might infact have cost his side a win. It was said he didn't take numerous singles on offer from TGO who set his field back for TOGO (The Other Great One), who preferred to deal in twos and fours.

TOGO's supporters would no doubt say that instead of being six down at the end of the alloted overs his team would have been bowled out a lot sooner if he had let other batsmen face for any length of time. This, however, would reveal little faith in his teammates.

XXX wrote:

---

Need a rule clarification. Stumpy you are required.

A team has the barest amount of players to start the game which is 7. They lose the toss and are bowling. In the first over 2 of their players collide going for a catch. Both are injured and go off the field. Does the game continue with 5 or is the game over as they no longer have 7 on the field.????????????????.  

---

 Laws of Cricket apply but not as to the minimum that would be a local rule.  I would think that if persons not present on the field as in your scenario then the minmum would not be met.  Laws of Cricket state that the game can be played by agreement with more or less than 11 players but only 11 players can field.  I know that doesn't help but the fair thing would be that the match would be stopped as insufficient players present.

Liken that to 7 players being present at the toss and two get called away for some reason before you started the match what would you do.