Your Letters
Malcolm Howard, Surrey ACO
I have read the new Law 42 effective from October 2017 and having been invited to comment( page 5 issue 28) I would comment as follows:
( 1) A batsman tells the umpire he is blind upon being given out. I would regard that as Level 1 dissent.
( 2) As above, but batsman also refuses to walk. I would regard that as Level 2 dissent.
( 3) Upon being given out, the batsman strides down the wicket until he reaches the bowler’ s umpire, puts his nose in the umpire’ s face and tells him that he cannot be out LBW because the ball hit him too high up the pad. I would regard this as a Level 3 offence.
This gives rise to two questions:
( a) Is my interpretation correct; if not can we have a definition that will separate dissent from serious dissent?
( b) In the case of example( 3) if the offence was caused by the batting side batting first, would the batsman miss the first 10 overs of the second innings when his side were fielding? Also, if he were batting in the second innings would he miss the first 10 overs in his next game?
Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor The Law states that( 42.1.3):
‘ The umpire concerned shall report the matter to the other umpire and together they shall decide whether misconduct has occurred. If so, they shall determine into which of the Levels the conduct falls, as set out in 42.2 to 42.5, and then apply the related sanctions.’ This makes clear that it is for the umpires officiating the specific game, in the context of the match, to reach a decision. Only the umpire on the day will be able to know if an offence constitutes dissent or serious dissent. Your interpretation, above, seems valid, but it may be that the tone of the first incident suggested serious dissent.
Certainly, number 3 would come under Level 3, as intimidating an umpire. The umpire should therefore call the offending batsman’ s captain onto the field, explain that a Level 3 offence has occurred, and ask him to remove the offending player for 10 overs( or one fifth of the number of overs allocated to the innings at its commencement).
Your final question touched on a matter that was, when this code was first published, not entirely clear, but has now been settled.
The new section reads:
‘ If the offending player is a dismissed member of the batting side, the period of suspension will not commence until the start of the next innings. Furthermore, in these circumstances, the offending player may not act as a runner during the innings when he / she was suspended.’
The suspension would therefore start at the beginning of the next innings, but would not carry through to the next game – however, under Law 42.4.2.5 the umpires would report it to the governing body responsible for the match, and it is for them to decide on any further action.
I hope that answers your question.
Finally, ECB ACO will be issuing specific training and guidance on the application and interpretation of the new Law, and that will include guidance on the difference between dissent and serious dissent.
Ned Wilsher, Middlesex ACO
It was the last ball of the match( it always is, isn’ t it). With two runs to win, the striker drove the ball through the covers and set off like a bullet in what was a tight‘ two’. The batsmen turned hurriedly and scampered for the second, surviving a shy at the stumps, leaving the ball scooting off into the outfield somewhere. The fielders and batsmen began to shake hands, and a helpful wicketkeeper set about pulling out the stumps when everyone became aware that I had shouted and signalled a‘ short run’.
So, rather than a win, the match was drawn.
I was challenged by the batsmen who felt I should have indicated the short run straight away since the overthrow was such that they felt they could have run a third. An on-field conference with my colleague confirmed our understanding of the Law. The call and signal cannot be given until after the ball had gone dead( Law 18.4( a)) and not whilst the ball was still in play. We also concluded that the ball become dead once the players began to shake hands etc( Law 23.1( b)).
In the bar, I continued to be questioned by the batsmen who felt I should have told them one run was short. What I told the players is that it would have been unfair for me to advise the batsmen without informing all 11 of the fielding side, otherwise the batsmen would have run the third with fielders not realising that a run out was still possible. In the end they saw sense, but I would welcome views from other umpires about this.
Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor
You were quite right to call the short run as described above. The Laws are clear that a short run is only to be signalled after the ball becomes dead, so there would not be any further opportunity for a third run in reaction to the call. The batsmen have cost themselves the chance of winning the game through their own mistake, and it would be quite wrong of you to bend the Laws for their benefit.
Many thanks
18 email us at ecb. aco @ ecb. co. uk contact us on 0121 446 2710