For the benefit of new readers – the batsman swept at a leg-side slow ball which took the under-edge of the bat, bounced up and struck the back of the striker’s hand, still holding the bat as the stroke was completed, and looped to short fine-leg, who took a comfortable catch.  The batsman stood his ground and was adjudged “not out” on appeal.

After the match, the skipper of the fielding side asked the umpire why it had not been given out.  He was quoted, quite correctly, Law 34 3(d) that seems to support the verdict:-

“(A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if) a fielder catches the ball after it has been lawfully struck more than once by the striker, but only if the ball has not touched the ground since first being struck.”

“But that’s not fair!” was the skipper’s anguished reply.

Was he right?  The answer, I assert, is “Yes, and no.”  That particular sub-clause is fair, when correctly interpreted.  However, I believe this batsman survived unfairly.

The Laws ARE fair.  Indeed, since 1744 in the Star and Garter, compositors of the canon by which we fight our noblest of games have striven to achieve the epitome of fairness.  The stumbling block – and tell me it was not here in 1744 – is our other treasure, our English language.

The dilemma upon which we have so successfully impaled ourselves this time is the similarity – perhaps, the homogeneity – of two words: strike v. p.p. struck -  OE strican ‘go, flow’ and ‘rub lightly’ W Gmc origin (related to following); and stroke n. act of hitting, v. ‘move one’s hand over with gentle pressure (p.p. stroked) OE stracian ‘caress lightly’.  Add a third, “play v. strike a ball or execute a stroke; n. a move or manoeuvre in a sport or game” and we have a fine casserole.

I came to the Laws in 1960, at the age of 17.  By 1962, I had passed Written and Oral examinations with scores in the 90’s, and only missed Full Membership status by playing, rather than umpiring, matches.  However, I never lost my interest, and remained a member of ACU (later ACU&S), receiving “How’s That?” for many years.  I feel I understand the Laws, not just as a code, but as a concept.  Fairness is embodied therein; sometimes, its intention can be misunderstood.  At school, we had all-year-round matches of cricket in the playground, with mini-bats and practice golf-balls.  I drew up a code of rules, calling them “The Laws of Hardcourt Cricket”.  We had one player who would challenge them to breaking point, and I was involved with constant rewrites to frustrate his attempts to cheat.  It was a valuable experience when it came to interpreting the senior version.  The problem is as old as the hills.  You say what you mean, but do you mean what you say?  Is it the same thing?

My point is that the current code has places where something reasonable is intended, but a misinterpretation leads to a ruling which I describe as bizarre.  How did we possibly get to the position where we would see a ball flick a striker’s pad, bounce, then take the edge of his bat in the same stroke, fly to slip, be held, and the man be declared “not out”?

Let us start this analysis with the 1744 code.  As you know, there were no numbers, but they came under headings.

“Laws for Ye Strikers, or those that are in

(3^rd paragraph)

A stroke or nip over or under his Batt, or upon his hands, but not arms, if ye Ball be held before she touches ye ground, though she be hug’d to the body, it’s Out.”

No reference here as to how the ball may be struck – it is to be assumed that “bat, no ground, held” is out, however it was fashioned, if it comes in the first stroke.  Logically, bat, ground, body, ground, bat, body, fielder’s hand” would satisfy the requirement, as there was a sequence of “no grounding between bat and fielder” in that stroke.

Then follows:

(6^th paragraph)

“If a ball is nipped up and he strikes her again, wilfully, before she comes to ye Wicket, its Out.”

Here is our “unlawful” second (or subsequent) strike.  It is clearly defined as “wilful” – NOT accidental – and the penalty is quite clear.  Again, we have to get into the mind of the writer and deduce that it was considered wrong to hit the ball again, even in defence of the wicket, if it is a candidate for a catch.  This is fundamental.  It must have informed Lord’s when confirming the dismissal of Len Hutton for Obstruction when he unwittingly baulked Endean but wilfully attempted an unlawful second strike.

Strangely sited under “Batt Foot or Hand over ye Crease”, we find:

(6^th paragraph)

“If a Striker nips a ball up just before him, he may fall before his Wicket, or pop down his Batt before she comes to it, to save it.”

Here is the “lawful” second – or subsequent – “strike”.  It is quite clear that this is a defensive measure, allowed only to stop the ball hitting the wicket after being played the first time.  It is also clear that no actual “stroke” is permitted – popping down the bat is hardly a device for scoring runs, any more than falling down on the wicket would be.

Let us move on to the Code adopted – and frequently amended – from 1884.

“The Striker is out –

22.    (Or,) if the ball, from a stroke of the bat or hand, but not the wrist, be held before it touch the ground, although it be hugged to the body of the catcher :– “Caught.”…

27. Or, if the ball be struck, or be stopped by any part of his person and he wilfully strikes it again, except it be done for the purpose of guarding his wicket, which he may do with his bat, or any part of his person except his hands : – “Hit the ball twice.”

Again, the phrase “wilfully strikes it again” confirms the illegality of wilfully striking the ball again other than in defence of the stumps.  Note, also, that after a period of playing the sport far in excess of the time from then till now, no mention at all has been made of an unintentional second or subsequent hit, of which there must have been legion.

Now we come to the code upon which I cut my teeth – that ground out from grim experience in 1947 and periodically updated right up to 1980.

Many of the points defined in the code clearly came from a desire to give the bowler credit for wickets taken wherever possible – balls struck directly to the bowler, who parries the ball into the non-striker’s wicket when he is out of his ground, and thus technically out, Run Out, and then held by a fieldsman without touching the ground from the strike.  We all know, now, that that is out Caught, and the bowler thus takes credit for the wicket.

In a similar fashion, although less common, there must have been occasions where a batsman played the ball initially into the air, but towards the stumps, and took another stroke at the ball to prevent it hitting the wicket.  Not out “Hit the ball twice”, but if it had not bounced between strikes, it could still be caught.  That was obviously out Caught, but what if the ball had bounced in between strokes?  It would be unfair to give the batsman out Caught, as he was legally entitled to play the second stroke, knowing he could not benefit from runs directly from the stroke.

Where, then, should that be defined?  The obvious choice was in the Law relating to catches:

“35. – The Striker is out “Caught” – If the ball, from a stroke of the bat or of the hand holding the bat, but not the wrist, be held by a Fieldsman before it touch the ground, although it be hugged to the body of the catcher, or be accidentally lodged in his dress.  The Fieldsman must have both his feet entirely within the playing area at the instant the catch is completed.”

In an experimental addition, the words “and afterwards” were added, to resolve an occasion where a fielder run over the boundary.  Note well, however, that no mention at all is made of when the offending contact with the bat or hand is to be made.  Do you suppose no-one had even considered a “double-hit”?  Obviously, if it had bounced after final contact with the bat, it could not be out, so why say it?

We have to read down to sub-section 6 to find:

“–  if the striker lawfully plays the ball a second time he may be out under this Law, but only if the ball has not touched the ground since being first struck.”

“Lawfully playing” can only logically be construed as a subsequent stroke to the first, in that it refers to the legitimacy of a second attempt to hit the ball as defined in Law 37 – as it then was – “HIT THE BALL TWICE”.

“37. – The Striker is out “Hit the ball twice” – If the ball be struck or be stopped by part of his person, and he wilfully strike it again, except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket, which he may do with his bat or any part of his person, other than his hands.  No runs except those which result from an overthrow shall be scored from a ball lawfully struck twice.” (my underlining).

There is the key: the only other reference to “lawfully”, and clearly referring to the second attempt to play the ball, not the first.  The Law went on to deny the right of the striker to play at the ball again if in so doing he baulk the wicket-keeper attempting a catch.  It did not refer to whether a catch was in the offing, as that was covered by subsection 6 of Law 35 – Caught.

The 1980 code made little change to the situation, in that the wording became:

“2 a fair catch

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if:

(d) A Fieldsman catches the ball, after it has been lawfully played a second time by the Striker, but only if the ball has not touched the ground since first being struck.”

Again, the word “played” appears, indicating that it is a lawful second play, rather than a second strike, which would have included a double hit.  “Play” must be seen as a deliberate stroke, or the Law relating to illegal deflection under Leg Byes falls to pieces.  The problem arose that saying “played” did not ensure that the ball had been struck, which would be necessary for a catch even to be considered.

None of the available definitions of either Law referred to “double-hits”.  It was clearly not considered to be a problem.  This only arose as a result of the 2000 rewrite.  In this, thought was clearly given to the phrase “lawfully played a second time”.  Suppose the batsman missed in his second attempt to protect his stumps, and took a third stroke, or more?  The significant sub-clause changed to:

“(d) a fielder catches the ball after it has been lawfully struck more than once by the striker, but only if the ball has not touched the ground since first being struck.”

Suddenly, a Law which had attempted to allow a bowler to claim a catch even though a batsman had lawfully played more than one stroke in attempting to protect his stumps, became construed as a protection for a batsman – playing a single swipe at the ball from which a final contact with bat and ball, with no intervention from the ground, is held by a fieldsman – from being adjudged “caught”.

This is unfair on the bowler.  A senior colleague, hearing of the recent incident where a bodged sweep went bat, ground, back of the hand, fielder, said he would give the batsman “not out, caught” but if the ball had flown over the boundary without pitching, he would only have awarded a boundary four.

Nowhere in the current Tom Smith’s has this situation been discussed, despite a technical paper having been issued well before the rewrite stating that pad-ground-bat-fielder in the same stroke was “not out, caught”.  Indeed, on Pages 218 and 219: “accidental double hit” and “wilful second hit (in defence of his wicket)” it positively avoids it.  Were there the need to clarify a catch from a double-hit, it would surely have been there.

Sub-section (d) should have clarified its intent thus:

“(d) Law 32 – Caught 3(d)

(A fair catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if…)

a fielder catches the ball after it has been struck by a batsman making a second or subsequent stroke at the ball solely in order to guard his wicket, but only if the ball does not touch the ground after final contact with the bat during the first stroke.  See Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once).”

It has been said that I am ignoring the plain facts of the written Law.  Very, very few Laws have been written so well that they offer no loopholes.  If it were so, lawyers would hardly be necessary.   “6. Thou shalt not kill.”  What, never?  The Law may not say exactly what it means – that does not mean we slavishly follow it down a false path. 

If we cannot justify the fairness of a Law – it must have been open to misinterpretation.

Athene Noctua

Sir,

As a qualified cricket umpire and registered umpiring instructor, it distressed me greatly to hear of two instances of biased and misleading reporting in your newspapers this weekend.

Controversial lbw decision proves pivotal moment of match

Hertford feel very hard Dun by over Darby dismissal

was somewhat unfair. From whose point of view? The batsman's? The spectators, none of whom would have been permitted to be in line behind the bowler's arm? Obviously not the wicket-keeper and bowler, as they would have been the appellants in this case.

"Broxbourne got off to the worst possible start when Chris Dawson was harshly given out lbw first ball of the innings."

Yours faithfully,

Ian Don

CAVE BUBONEM
Ian.Don@ntlworld.com
01920 422176
07749 879867

"Walker"

"It’s hanging there now," replied the boy.

"Is it?" said Scrooge. "Go and buy it."

"No, no," said Scrooge, "I am in earnest…"

"A CHRISTMAS CAROL"

Charles Dickens

When Dickens wrote these famous words one hundred and sixty years ago, when I was but a chick, we can suppose that "Walker" was some term of ridicule, like "You’re having a lark!" (which nobody seems to get right these days) or "Naff off!", as royally uttered. In the United States, a Jaywalker can be prosecuted for crossing the road against the lights. A Floorwalker is slightly better than a salesgirl, and a Streetwalker… well…

So why do the old-timers around – and sometimes on – the cricket fields speak in awe of the batsman who is "a walker"?

If I go back to the early days of organised football, when the Corinthian Casuals amateurs habitually won the FA Cup, it was considered poor form to clear a ball off the line if you were not the goalkeeper. The rest of YOUR team would "send you to Coventry" – i.e. cut you dead – if you committed such an ungentlemanly act. The phrase "It’s not cricket" was applied to any action considered to be an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. If, while playing cricket, you hit a catch that was taken, you left the field. That’s what the Law says, anyway – there’s no mention of "in the opinion of the umpire".

How often have YOU struck a ball without realising you had done so? Not too often, I would say.

But coming closer to the present day, we encounter Lord Cowdrey and "Sir" Peter May, those fine upstanding products of the Public (i.e. private) school systems at Tonbridge and Charterhouse, who were committed "walkers". That made umpiring so much easier, as, believe it or not, it is quite difficult to determine the difference between a nick from a glove and from a pad, and between one from a bat and from a dried wormcast on the pitch. Or DID it? Because it was a known fact that both these stalwarts would wait for the umpire’s decision if the match were at a crucial stage!

So what did that do? If, as umpire, you thought you’d detected a nick of bat on ball, only to see the famous "walker" remain in his ground, would you not begin to doubt your own eyes and ears? And if so, would you not be obliged to say "Not out"?

Nearly up-to-date now – Graham Gooch, great man of Essex and England, in his autobiography entitled, pithily: "GOOCH My Autobiography" said this:

On the subject of walking: would I have walked without even waiting to see what the umpire’s decision was, if that ball had nicked my bat instead of my pad?

If it had obviously hit my bat and deviated a mile, of course I would have. But in any close decision I believe it is better to wait for the umpire’s decision. So many batsmen want it both ways – they don’t walk for obvious dismissals, and then kick up a fuss when the decision is close. I am sure it is best simply to wait for the decision, and if it goes against you, get off promptly. That way there need be no moans or complaints, and the umpires’ authority is maintained. Since I’ve been captain I have always instructed my players, whether batting or fielding, to wait for the umpire’s decision and, when it’s been given, to comply without hesitation.

Those are my underlinings, but the point is well made. I dislike being told, after having given a batsman out, that he "would have walked if he’d hit it", as it is an unreliable test. My eyes are OK, at present, but my extra-sensory perception leaves much to be desired! All I want is for players to appreciate that umpires do make mistakes – they are, despite some occasional comments, all human – and subject to the same errors as the players. The point is, none of us cheat – I hope – and the error would be an honest one. Accept it, and leave – or stay – and say nothing. You will have a much happier career!

To put that in a nutshell, let me borrow the words of the Grantham Baroness, with slight changes:

Athene Noctua

That was what they used to say, in my youth. Such a long time ago. Nowadays, few people wear hats except in a sporting capacity – tennis, baseball, motor racing and cricket, for instance. But suppose you find the hat an encumbrance, when trying to take a catch, for instance, or running to field a ball? I’ve noticed it has become the norm to flick the hat off as you run, certainly as far as cricket is concerned. Suppose you throw the ball back and hit your own hat? What then?

The answer – and you were expecting this, were you not, my children? – is complicated. If the hat had blown off through your electrifying burst of pace – not something many of you will have experienced lately, I fear – no penalty will ensue, just as if you had fallen in trying to make a catch and the ball had hit your untenanted cap as it escaped your clutches.

But what if you had deliberately knocked the hat off?

In such a case, the umpire would have no option but to call "Dead ball!" immediately, award 5 penalty runs to the batting side, and put both you and your captain on report. The same would apply to the growing trend of ‘keepers throwing off a gauntlet to take the throw-in with the ‘wrong’ hand, then take the ball in the ungloved hand and attempt a shy at the other end. If the ball fell onto the discarded glove, curtains. It would have to be so – if the ball might have gone for overthrows, it would be unfair on the batting side if the discarded glove saved runs despite the ‘keeper’s error.

Having said that, I can’t see the report being taken too seriously back at the ranch, and it might even be decided that it could be dispensed with – but the 5 run penalty would have to stand!

Come to think of it, I’ve watched a lot of that American offshoot, baseball, and I’ve yet to see a left or right field man knock his cap off to make a catch, have you? And they invented the long peak, too!

Athene noctua

Remember the hilarious American sitcom "Soap"? There’s one exchange that I shall never forget:

Unfortunately, it’s not funny when you have to own up to having less than a full team. But sometimes, the opposition are the injured party. Take a recent incident in a Saracen’s League match:

The away team arrived at the ground with only nine men. The skipper spoke to the home captain and said that another player might be coming along later. Significantly, he then handed over the team card, as required by the League and by the Laws of Cricket, which contained only nine names. The away side then batted.

Two hours later, another player duly arrived. At the fall of a wicket, he came in to bat. Whether it was obvious to the home captain that he was the unnamed tenth man is uncertain, but nothing was said, perhaps through embarrassment, and some important runs were scored while he was at the crease.

After tea, the home team’s innings commenced. By this time, it was recognised who the extra player was. To the home skipper’s astonishment, he proceeded to take the new ball. The skipper immediately complained, and the umpire ruled that the player could not bowl until two hours of playing time had passed. The away skipper retorted that tacit approval had been given for the man to join the match as a player, therefore he should be allowed to bowl. The umpire stood his ground, and the bowler was changed. However, the away team skipper maintained that a player could join the match at any time on the first day, and accused the home skipper of cheating.

So – who was right, and who was wrong? Well, the away team skipper was nearly right – Law 2.8, relating to players returning to the field, used to have the phrase: "This restriction shall not apply at the start of a new day’s play." It was removed in the 2000 code.

Skippers who had never bothered with the requirement of Law 1 that the names of the team should be exchanged before the toss with the opposing team found the necessity to do so imposed by league cricket a tiresome irrelevance. Even the requirement to add the ages of junior players seemed just so much bureaucracy. Yet it is incidents such as this that highlight the benefits of the nomination process.

In the incident above, only nine names had been exchanged. Law 1.2 says that "No player may be changed after the nomination without the consent of the opposing captain." By "changed" we can suppose that this includes "added" – in essence, Mr Blank can’t become Mr Person. On this occasion, the fact that the home captain made no fuss when the new player came out to bat could be interpreted as consent, although a solicitor might drive buses through that one.

What happened in the second innings is governed by a new ruling in Law 2.5. It says:

It says "fielder" and that’s what it means – only time off the field whilst a member of the fielding side counts. There is no embargo against a batsman joining the game late – if nominated, he can bat as soon as he arrives, if needed.

This incident, therefore, revolves around the action of the home captain in ‘permitting’ the renegade player to bat. If he was not asked if the player might join the side, there is no argument – the new player should not have been allowed to bat or bowl, nor could he field as a substitute, as there is no wholly acceptable reason for his doing so. The fact that he did bat is irrelevant. There is no penalty for batting when you should not, other than the authorities taking punitive action against the club concerned.

If the home captain was asked if the new player could join the side, and he gave his approval, the new player would have had full playing rights, since his side had not been fielding for fifteen minutes or more when he arrived on the ground.

"Against the backdrop of a deep and dark purple sky, play on the fourth evening of the second Test in Trinidad was called to a premature halt because the umpires insisted that the players left the field. The England batsmen were unimpressed - nay, furious. They wanted to bat on, into the night if need be, to secure victory lest it rain today which, it must be said, was not forecast.

Worse still, a strong rumour was floating through the thick, humid air that Brian Lara was happy to play on. This is a tough one to believe. The umpires claim that conditions had become dangerous and therefore took the law into their own hands.

Should it rain all day today, Billy Bowden and Daryl Harper will need a substantial police escort out of the ground, so petty and ridiculous were their continuous interruptions to the flow of play. The lynching will be done by the Barmy Army if, that is, the England touring party have not got to them first. Had these two good, if perhaps insecure, men kept their counsel and not met five times to discuss the conditions, the match would be won and their slate clean. As it is some sort of inquest will have to take place and the point that neither man has played cricket at first-class level considered closely."

Ah, young Mr Nicholas – what a fine player you were for Hampshire in your day! And I have to say, your performances as a presenter on Channel 4 are informed, entertaining and do the sport credit.

However, your latest rant in the Sport Telegraph has me reaching for my favourite quill. Nobody would argue that the England players, supporters and the ground authorities – who can hardly charge for today’s play – would have liked to have seen the end of the match that evening. But the poor umpires have another thought in mind – getting all the players safely off the field at the end. No, I don’t mean rioting fans causing mayhem: I’m talking balls.

Nothing new there, then, I hear you say. But just consider this:

Law 3 THE UMPIRE – states that if the umpires together agree that the light is UNSUITABLE for play, they ask the batting side if they wish to continue. If they do, it has to stay AS BAD, or GET WORSE, before they can ask to go off again. There is no consideration given to the fielding side. That’s because the unsuitability of the light mainly affects the batsman.

But now read Law 3 – 9 (d) "If at any time the umpires together agree that the conditions of ground, weather or light are so bad that there is obvious and foreseeable risk to the safety of ANY player or umpire, so that it would be UNREASONABLE or DANGEROUS for play to take place… they shall immediately suspend play… The decision as to whether the conditions are so bad as to warrant such an action is one for the umpires alone to make."

Ever tried fielding in the dark, my children? Such fun it is, as the ball rushes past you with someone shouting, "Well stop it, then!" I have looked with trepidation at some of those Geddings matches finishing at 9 o’clock and hoped that no-one gets hurt in the honourable cause of charity. Luckily, wisdom has prevailed, and play is less frantic than at Test level!

"As it is some sort of inquest will have to take place and the point that neither man has played cricket at first-class level considered closely."

Well, Mr Nicholas, excusing your amateurish English, what difference would their playing experience make in this situation? Their umpiring has been commended at all levels up to this date. You can be assured that the Lawmakers would back to the hilt any umpire who – with his colleague’s agreement – brought the players off in dangerous or unreasonable conditions.

Were the players in any physical danger? Let’s leave (almost) the last word to the all-seeing Mr Nicholas:

"When he could get the strike, Michael Vaughan was no less scintillating. One pull stroke to a ball barely short of a length flew over deep backward square leg for six; another went wide of mid-on as if propelled by a rocket launcher."

Iraq, anyone? Or Palestine?

Athene Noctua