During the clash of the ICC Women’s World Cup Sunday between India and PakistanSuddenly confusion arises on the dismissal of Pakistan Muneeba Ali’s dough. The incident took place in fourth place from Pakistan’s scene. Muneeba has survived the appeal for LBW, but afterwards, the ball Deepi Sharma on the slip. Observing that Muneeba was outside his folds, Deepi threw a stump. After a long review, Muneeba was punished because the bats were not built behind the folds that appeared at this time.
To understand the decision, it is important to consider some cricket laws. The first point is that the ball is still alive despite the previous LBW appeal. Just because the player or the referee appealed for LBW, that doesn’t mean the ball is dead. In this case, the appeal was answered, the ball had not been completed at the hands of the goalkeeper, and Deepti’s actions indicated that the game was still active. The main question is whether Muneeba is on his land when the stump breaks. The evidence clearly indicates that the bat is the air at this time the bail has been removed. Some observers are questioned whether the law of 30.1.2, introduced in 2010 and is often called ‘bat bouncing law,’ may apply. These laws say that the dough will not be considered from their land if, when running or diving towards their folds, bats or bodies while losing contact with the soil after bringing it behind the folds that appear. However, this protection applies only to active battles moving towards their land. In the case of Muneeba, he did not move, after taking his guard beyond the folds that appeared. His feet did not move back to the folds, and the bat was lifted into the air without any attempt to run. These laws are designed to protect the batter that accidentally loses contact with the land while running or diving, not those who only lift their bats or their advantages while moving. For this reason, the third referee is correct in giving it. There are also questions about how to dismiss. Since Muneeba didn’t try to run, has she been abandoned instead of running out? The right decision is exhausted. This is because he did not run, and the stumps were broken by a player, not the goalkeeper who acted alone. The ball is alive, no ball, and the action involves a midfielder who removes the stump. Under these conditions, the decision of the referee runs out is completely.
