If 2 batters retire injured in the same innings, and a wicket falls can either return
if they feel ok to do so? Or is it the first to retire? What if no wkt falls, but
a 3rd batter retires injured, can one of the previous retirees replace him/her or
does it have to be a new batter? Just wondering what the current rules are as theres
some funny things happening in a tour match in NZ right now.

mike

25.4.2 If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.

25.4.3 If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.

If injured, they can resume their innings in any order.

ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only really used for statistics eg batting averages.

This law was bent slightly, and rightly, when Gordon Greenidge left a Test match to see his dying daughter. He retired for "any other reason" but the MCC(I presume) allowed it to be recorded as "Retired Not Out". Good on em.

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 1:40:22 AM UTC+11, miked wrote:
> If 2 batters retire injured in the same innings, and a wicket falls can either return
> if they feel ok to do so? Or is it the first to retire? What if no wkt falls, but
> a 3rd batter retires injured, can one of the previous retirees replace him/her or
> does it have to be a new batter? Just wondering what the current rules are as theres
> some funny things happening in a tour match in NZ right now.
>
There's no restriction in the order they come back. They can replace another retired batsman

On Tuesday 30 January 2024 at 20:13:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> 25.4.2 If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.
>
> 25.4.3 If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.
>
> If injured, they can resume their innings in any order.

That seems pretty obvious, not least because only one of them may be fit to resume when the opportunity arises. Essentially a batter who has retired not out goes back into the pool of available batters along with those who have yet to bat in the innings.

> ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only really used for statistics eg batting averages.

In most cases that is the only difference it makes, but in some circumstances it could affect the result, e.g. if the 9th wicket falls in the 4th innings off the last possible ball of a Test after a batter has retired not out, then presumably the match would be drawn*, whereas if they had retired out, it would have been the 10th wicket and their side would have lost (or tied if the scores were level). It could also affect DLS calculations in a limited-overs match.

*on the assumption that the retired batter could have resumed their innings.. , which might be controversial if they were not at the ground.

On 31/01/2024 13:57, David North wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2024 at 20:13:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>> ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only
>> really used for statistics eg batting averages.
> In most cases that is the only difference it makes, but in some
> circumstances it could affect the result, e.g. if the 9th wicket
> falls in the 4th innings off the last possible ball of a Test after a
> batter has retired not out, then presumably the match would be
> drawn*, whereas if they had retired out, it would have been the 10th
> wicket and their side would have lost (or tied if the scores were
> level). [...]

Many, many years ago, Notts very nearly won a CC match in such
circumstances. The opposition [I forget who they were] had a batsman
retired hurt, and lost their 9th wicket about a minute before the close
to the last ball of an over. There wasn't time for the injured batsman
[who was not at the ground] to be timed out, nor could the next over be
started in time, so the match was drawn. Had the wicket fallen a ball
earlier, Notts would have won; had the batsman been "retired out",
Notts would have won; had the batsman not been out, Notts would have
had an extra five balls to take the 9th wicket and win. I find it
difficult to think of other circumstances in which it's a disadvantage
to the bowling side to have taken a wicket on the last ball of a match!

I don't know whether any of the relevant Laws have changed in
the last mumble years.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Marpurg

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:57:59 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2024 at 20:13:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> > 25.4.2 If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.
> >
> > 25.4.3 If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.
> >
> > If injured, they can resume their innings in any order.
> That seems pretty obvious

yeah. I did misspeak though. I said "injured", but it's really ANY retired batsman, for any reason. Obviously anyone retired under 25.4.3 needs permission from the opposing captain.

> > ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only really used for statistics eg batting averages.
>
> *on the assumption that the retired batter could have resumed their innings. , which might be controversial if they were not at the ground.

something about this whole retired business doesn't feel quite right.

Firstly, ISTM there are 3 states;
1) retired (this is any retired batsman, including those under 25.4.2 and 25.4.3). They are "retired" until the close of the innings, when their status changes to either
2) retired Not Out
3) retired Out

This seems patently obvious from the wording of 25.4.2/3. A batsman doesn't become "retired not out" or "retired out" until it has been determined that their innings won't resume, and that doesn't happen until the team's inning ends.
A batsman who retires under 25.4.2 has an automatic right to resume their innings.
A batsman who retires under 25.4.3 doesn't have an automatic right to resume their innings, but may do so if the other captain agrees to it.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure most scorers would considered a batsman who retired under 25.4.3 (a fact they'd need to establish by talking to the umpire) to be Out when it comes to live statistics. Eg Cricinfo updates a batsman's stats after each
delivery, and I'm pretty sure in this case they'd treat the retirement as a dismissal w.r.t averages. Thing is.. if the oppo captain let such a batsman bat again, they'd have to "undo" the dismissal.

I think Retired Out should only partially be treated like a dismissal, such as when working out if the innings is complete. Retired Out (determined once the fielding captain rejected the request to bat again) would count as 1 of the 10 possible dismissals.
But I don't think it should count as Out when it comes to statistics eg batting averages.
There are almost zero circumstances where retiring is beneficial to the batting team. It almost always helps the bowling team.
I was trying to think how it could help the batting team, and wondered if "retiring a fatigued batsman to bring in a new one" would help, but.. who can accurately tell the difference between illness and fatigue? Would heatstroke count as "illness"?
If I was defining stats, I'd treat *any* retired as a Not Out.

As for treating retired as Out when it comes to determining winners (say, for example, Number of Dismissals was used as a table tie breaker if points were tied), then it absolutely feels unfair to treat Retired Out as a Dismissal.
Imagine these two innings;
a) 10 batsman, all scoring 50, then retiring under 25.4.3 and not batting again
b) 10 batsman, all scoring 50, then getting dismissed eg caught

Innings A is a *far* superior batting innings. The bowling team didn't take a single wicket! But if we treat Retired Out as a dismissal, these innings would be "equal" on that count. That doesn't feel right.

On 01/02/2024 02:30, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:57:59 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> On Tuesday 30 January 2024 at 20:13:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> 25.4.2 If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.
>>>
>>> 25.4.3 If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.
>>>
>>> If injured, they can resume their innings in any order.
>> That seems pretty obvious
>
> yeah. I did misspeak though. I said "injured", but it's really ANY retired batsman, for any reason. Obviously anyone retired under 25.4.3 needs permission from the opposing captain.
>
>>> ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only really used for statistics eg batting averages.
>>
>> *on the assumption that the retired batter could have resumed their innings. , which might be controversial if they were not at the ground.
>
> something about this whole retired business doesn't feel quite right.
>
> Firstly, ISTM there are 3 states;
> 1) retired (this is any retired batsman, including those under 25.4.2 and 25.4.3). They are "retired" until the close of the innings, when their status changes to either
> 2) retired Not Out
> 3) retired Out
>
> This seems patently obvious from the wording of 25.4.2/3. A batsman doesn't become "retired not out" or "retired out" until it has been determined that their innings won't resume, and that doesn't happen until the team's inning ends.
> A batsman who retires under 25.4.2 has an automatic right to resume their innings.
> A batsman who retires under 25.4.3 doesn't have an automatic right to resume their innings, but may do so if the other captain agrees to it.
>
> Having said that, I'm pretty sure most scorers would considered a batsman who retired under 25.4.3 (a fact they'd need to establish by talking to the umpire) to be Out when it comes to live statistics. Eg Cricinfo updates a batsman's stats after each
> delivery, and I'm pretty sure in this case they'd treat the retirement as a dismissal w.r.t averages. Thing is.. if the oppo captain let such a batsman bat again, they'd have to "undo" the dismissal.
>
> I think Retired Out should only partially be treated like a dismissal, such as when working out if the innings is complete. Retired Out (determined once the fielding captain rejected the request to bat again) would count as 1 of the 10 possible dismissals.
> But I don't think it should count as Out when it comes to statistics eg batting averages.
> There are almost zero circumstances where retiring is beneficial to the batting team. It almost always helps the bowling team.
> I was trying to think how it could help the batting team, and wondered if "retiring a fatigued batsman to bring in a new one" would help, but.. who can accurately tell the difference between illness and fatigue? Would heatstroke count as "illness"?

The most common reason for a batter to retire out seems to be to let
someone else have a go (usually in tour matches with more than 11
players per side, so they don't count towards the stats anyway). That's
certainly supposed to be beneficial to the batting team, albeit not in
the match in which it happens.

--
David North

David North wrote:

> On 01/02/2024 02:30, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:57:59 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 30 January 2024 at 20:13:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> 25.4.2 If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.
>>>>
>>>> 25.4.3 If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.
>>>>
>>>> If injured, they can resume their innings in any order.
>>> That seems pretty obvious
>>
>> yeah. I did misspeak though. I said "injured", but it's really ANY retired batsman, for any reason. Obviously anyone retired under 25.4.3 needs permission from the opposing captain.
>>
>>>> ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only really used for statistics eg batting averages.
>>>
>>> *on the assumption that the retired batter could have resumed their innings. , which might be controversial if they were not at the ground.
>>
>> something about this whole retired business doesn't feel quite right.
>>
>> Firstly, ISTM there are 3 states;
>> 1) retired (this is any retired batsman, including those under 25.4.2 and 25.4.3). They are "retired" until the close of the innings, when their status changes to either
>> 2) retired Not Out
>> 3) retired Out
>>
>> This seems patently obvious from the wording of 25.4.2/3. A batsman doesn't become "retired not out" or "retired out" until it has been determined that their innings won't resume, and that doesn't happen until the team's inning ends.
>> A batsman who retires under 25.4.2 has an automatic right to resume their innings.
>> A batsman who retires under 25.4.3 doesn't have an automatic right to resume their innings, but may do so if the other captain agrees to it.
>>
>> Having said that, I'm pretty sure most scorers would considered a batsman who retired under 25.4.3 (a fact they'd need to establish by talking to the umpire) to be Out when it comes to live statistics. Eg Cricinfo updates a batsman's stats after each
>> delivery, and I'm pretty sure in this case they'd treat the retirement as a dismissal w.r.t averages. Thing is.. if the oppo captain let such a batsman bat again, they'd have to "undo" the dismissal.
>>
>> I think Retired Out should only partially be treated like a dismissal, such as when working out if the innings is complete. Retired Out (determined once the fielding captain rejected the request to bat again) would count as 1 of the 10 possible dismissals.
>> But I don't think it should count as Out when it comes to statistics eg batting averages.
>> There are almost zero circumstances where retiring is beneficial to the batting team. It almost always helps the bowling team.
>> I was trying to think how it could help the batting team, and wondered if "retiring a fatigued batsman to bring in a new one" would help, but.. who can accurately tell the difference between illness and fatigue? Would heatstroke count as "illness"?

> The most common reason for a batter to retire out seems to be to let
> someone else have a go (usually in tour matches with more than 11
> players per side, so they don't count towards the stats anyway).

yes, i dont know for sure but i bet nobodys retired out in a test, or
maybe even a FC match. but the match i mentioned I think had 6 retired
injured in the SA innings, but i did see this on BBC, which sometimes gets
these technical facts wrong. they might have been updated to retired out
as they clearly wernt all injured or at all i suspect, since several of
them are playing in the NZ test today [where they are getting hammered
with only 1? bowler who isnt on debut]. Actually as this is at Tauranga,
we might be in for some new batting records in NZ.

mike

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:45:44 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> The most common reason for a batter to retire out seems to be to let
> someone else have a go (usually in tour matches with more than 11
> players per side, so they don't count towards the stats anyway). That's
> certainly supposed to be beneficial to the batting team, albeit not in
> the match in which it happens.

True, but a bit of a stretch.

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:00:27 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
> yes, i dont know for sure but i bet nobodys retired out in a test

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;dismissal=11;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting

2 batsmen have, both from the same team in the same match.

Marvan Atapattu, on 201, when they had a lead of 350.
Mahela Jayawardene, when the lead was 440.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/asian-test-championship-2001-02-60711/sri-lanka-vs-bangladesh-2nd-match-63947/full-scorecard

jack fredricks wrote:

> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:00:27 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
>> yes, i dont know for sure but i bet nobodys retired out in a test

> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;dismissal=11;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting

> 2 batsmen have, both from the same team in the same match.

> Marvan Atapattu, on 201, when they had a lead of 350.
> Mahela Jayawardene, when the lead was 440.

> https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/asian-test-championship-2001-02-60711/sri-lanka-vs-bangladesh-2nd-match-63947/full-scorecard

i should have remembered this as there was a lot of criticism by the media of jayasuriya
for calling both in, especially after Jayawardene, since he declared 25 runs later,
and no ones done it since.

another unusual dismissal occured in the SL/Afghan test when mathews [recently timed out]
thrashed a ball to the boundary and knocked over his own stumps with his flailing bat.
But why is it credited to the bowler? Surely it should be just hit wkt as in obstruction, as
its a mistake by the batter nothing to do with the bowler usually. I also think there was 1
occsasion when the batter got hit and his helmet fell on the wkt.

mike

On 04/02/2024 16:55, miked wrote:
> David North wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2024 02:30, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:57:59 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 30 January 2024 at 20:13:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>>> 25.4.2 If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other
>>>>> unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her
>>>>> innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to
>>>>> be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.
>>>>>
>>>>> 25.4.3 If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2,
>>>>> the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of
>>>>> the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not
>>>>> resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.
>>>>>
>>>>> If injured, they can resume their innings in any order.
>>>> That seems pretty obvious
>>>
>>> yeah. I did misspeak though. I said "injured", but it's really ANY
>>> retired batsman, for any reason. Obviously anyone retired under
>>> 25.4.3 needs permission from the opposing captain.
>>>
>>>>> ISTM, that the "Retired Out" and "Retired Not Out" part is only
>>>>> really used for statistics eg batting averages.
>>>>
>>>> *on the assumption that the retired batter could have resumed their
>>>> innings. , which might be controversial if they were not at the ground.
>>>
>>> something about this whole retired business doesn't feel quite right.
>>>
>>> Firstly, ISTM there are 3 states;
>>> 1) retired (this is any retired batsman, including those under 25.4.2
>>> and 25.4.3). They are "retired" until the close of the innings, when
>>> their status changes to either
>>> 2) retired Not Out
>>> 3) retired Out
>>>
>>> This seems patently obvious from the wording of 25.4.2/3. A batsman
>>> doesn't become "retired not out" or "retired out" until it has been
>>> determined that their innings won't resume, and that doesn't happen
>>> until the team's inning ends.
>>> A batsman who retires under 25.4.2 has an automatic right to resume
>>> their innings.
>>> A batsman who retires under 25.4.3 doesn't have an automatic right to
>>> resume their innings, but may do so if the other captain agrees to it.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I'm pretty sure most scorers would considered a
>>> batsman who retired under 25.4.3 (a fact they'd need to establish by
>>> talking to the umpire) to be Out when it comes to live statistics. Eg
>>> Cricinfo updates a batsman's stats after each
>>> delivery, and I'm pretty sure in this case they'd treat the
>>> retirement as a dismissal w.r.t averages. Thing is.. if the oppo
>>> captain let such a batsman bat again, they'd have to "undo" the
>>> dismissal.
>>>
>>> I think Retired Out should only partially be treated like a
>>> dismissal, such as when working out if the innings is complete.
>>> Retired Out (determined once the fielding captain rejected the
>>> request to bat again) would count as 1 of the 10 possible dismissals.
>>> But I don't think it should count as Out when it comes to statistics
>>> eg batting averages.
>>> There are almost zero circumstances where retiring is beneficial to
>>> the batting team. It almost always helps the bowling team.
>>> I was trying to think how it could help the batting team, and
>>> wondered if "retiring a fatigued batsman to bring in a new one" would
>>> help, but.. who can accurately tell the difference between illness
>>> and fatigue? Would heatstroke count as "illness"?
>
>> The most common reason for a batter to retire out seems to be to let
>> someone else have a go (usually in tour matches with more than 11
>> players per side, so they don't count towards the stats anyway).
>
> yes, i dont know for sure but i bet nobodys retired out in a test, or
> maybe even a FC match. but the match i mentioned I think had 6 retired
> injured in the SA innings, but i did see this on BBC, which sometimes gets
> these technical facts wrong. they might have been updated to retired out
> as they clearly wernt all injured or at all i suspect, since several of
> them are playing in the NZ test today [where they are getting hammered
> with only 1? bowler who isnt on debut].

2 - Paterson played 2 Tests against England 4 years ago.

--
David North