In a run-out situation, a diving batter is not automatically out merely because the bat briefly leaves the ground. The important question is what happened first: whether the batter had already grounded the bat, while holding it, or had grounded their person beyond the popping crease during the dive.
Why the sequence matters
Law 30.1.2 covers a batter running or diving towards and beyond the ground. If a held bat or part of the batter’s person has been grounded beyond the popping crease, a later loss of contact does not by itself make the batter out of their ground. This is the specific rule described in the MCC Law 30 guidance on being out of the ground.
In this example, the held bat must first touch down beyond the crease; merely reaching that position in the air is not grounding.
Worked hypothetical example
Hypothetical: A batter dives towards the striker’s end. In frame A, the bat is held and clearly grounded beyond the popping crease while the batter is still moving forward. In frame B, the bat’s edge rises momentarily as the batter’s hands and body continue the movement. The wicket is broken during that brief lift.
Outcome: The batter is not out of their ground solely because the bat was airborne in frame B. The earlier grounding in frame A protects the batter for this purpose. Actual timing and a legally broken wicket still matter.
When the protection does not apply
Now change the facts. In a second hypothetical, the bat never touches the ground beyond the popping crease: it remains airborne throughout the dive, while no part of the batter’s person has grounded beyond the crease before the wicket is broken. That is not the same sequence. The batter cannot rely on a grounding that never occurred.
A still image of frame B alone leaves frame A unknown. Record that missing evidence instead of assuming either sequence. Check the competition conditions as well.