Adam Hitchcock, Derbyshire ACO
To change the Law for full tosses above waist height from a first caution... then a second and final caution... then off; to just a first and final caution, will result in a great many more bowlers’ days being ruined( especially in the lower leagues where these deliveries are commonplace).
At least in ECB playing conditions the umpire gets discretion as to whether the delivery was‘ fast’ before implementing the three-stage warning procedure. With this new Law though, a 13-year-old spinner or slow seamer could easily bowl two accidental balls wide and high above the batsman ' s head, simply because he ' s just starting out his cricket playing career. Both teams have a laugh at these deliveries. With the new Law though, he will be taken out of the attack much sooner, feel dreadful and arguably lose interest in the game.
I agree that when we umpire in the top divisions / premier leagues and higher,‘ beamers’ are less common and more likely to be dangerous and unfair( and fast!), and this‘ first and final’ caution may be more appropriate, but surely not in Division 10 where players in many cases will be paying upwards of £ 10 each to play, and we regularly see them deliver half a dozen slow and harmless inaccurate deliveries to which everyone jokes about, only for the standing umpire to have no choice but to issue a first and final caution. When I stand in the Premier League and above you rarely see these deliveries, but the lower down you go, the more you see. I have stood in a Sunday game where I have recorded seven beamers. It was a very friendly, enjoyable game, but three bowlers were on second and final cautions – obviously they would be sent-off next season.
Surely it is wrong to 1) not give the umpire discretion with regard to the pace of the ball and 2) not to keep the tried and tested three-stage procedure? If we’ re not careful we’ ll lose more players to the game and dispirit so many others. What’ s wrong with the playing condition of‘ if fast...’? I fear we’ re not thinking of the wider game here and we’ re just looking at pro and semi-pro cricket.
Thanks for taking the time to read my concern!
Andrew Tomalin
After several years’ experience in recreational cricket with the 2000 code, I thought the current Law of no ball essentially right in its treatment of full tosses, and the protection it affords against uncontrolled aggression and risk of injury, but would benefit from one clarification:
‘ Other than in exceptional circumstances, no delivery that would have hit, or does hit, the wicket is likely to have passed the batsman above no ball height. Exceptional circumstances could include: a very short batsman relative to the stumps in use, a heavy top-spinning delivery in very humid conditions, or a very slow delivery at very steep trajectory.’
My suggested clarification above all invites all players and umpires to judge for themselves the geometry implied by the Law, as a further check that may suggest that a call of no ball is not warranted.
In the amateur game players have come to expect, and umpires judge, the call of no ball,‘ for height’ to deliveries that bowl the batsman or trap him LBW, such as when a seam bowler deceives the batsman with a slow full-toss. I cannot understand why a batsman feels entitled to protection from such a ball, but I do sense that many players now do, and it is in that context that I suggest the need for clarification arises. The Law was surely not intended to protect the batsman thus, and it should also surely not be a refuge for playerumpires to find spurious doubt in favour of the batsman who misses a gift ball, yet that is an unintended consequence of this otherwise entirely sensible 2000 code.
I now see that reference to the wicket has been made to the MCC during consultation on the 2017 code, but dismissed on the grounds, I think, that a) the danger to the batsman must be judged by direct reference to his height and b) setting the threshold at bail height would in fact lower it. For the reasons stated, I think this is a missed opportunity. Argument a) invites the obvious question of why therefore should a short batsman defend the same height wicket as a tall batsman, whilst I think that argument b) is geometrically incorrect, depending of course on who is batting and bowling. My wording would in any case have answered both matters, since it simply adds a common sense test to the existing judgement.
Incidentally, the Consultation notes that‘ waist’ is defined in the dictionary as‘ lower rib’, but chooses not to make this explicit in the Law, which again seems like a missed opportunity to clarify something that in my experience has often been widely misinterpreted.
Worse, as I read it, the new October 2017 Law makes no attempt to discriminate a tummy-button-high full toss from a 12-year-old leg spinner from a throat-high full toss from an adult fast bowler. This reads like a plain mistake that makes the new Law 41.7.1 less useful to amateur cricket than the current ICC regulation would be: the ICC regulation now amends current 42.6b with:‘ If, in the opinion of the umpire, such a delivery is considered likely to inflict physical injury on the batsman …’ so that the umpire takes more significant action when required, and yet is able to apply some leniency to a gift ball. Surely the whole thrust of Law making here must be to control the risk of injury, not end the careers of young would-be spinners!
Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor
Thank you for your questions about Law 41.7. While I understand your concerns, the Law has been altered with safety in mind, and to bring the Laws of Cricket in line with the playing of a game at the highest level. Obviously, there is a huge variation in standard between the international game and recreational cricket – and in some Laws, this included, that will mean different playing conditions at the top and bottom of the game. Previously, the Laws have been superseded by playing conditions at the top of the game – moving forward it may be useful or necessary for leagues to do so at the lower level. If leagues believe one warning is too harsh they can, of course, legislate for that, and set playing conditions. However, it was felt that a Law that keeps players safe at the highest level and needs to be altered at lower levels is more sensible than one that exposes professional players to danger, requiring further legislation to protect them, for the benefit of less able players.
As for the removal of the words‘ non-slow’ from the Law, and the decision to treat all deliveries that pass the batsman above the waist the same, it was felt that it is unfair and unnecessary to give umpires a judgement to make on the speed, and therefore the safety, of such deliveries. What constitutes a‘ slow’ delivery has always been controversial, and is an unnecessary matter of confusion that was a common complaint to MCC from umpires. Removing it clears up the situation for all players and umpires.
The changes should help to keep players safer, make umpires’ jobs easier, and ensure a fairer game. Providing leeway at lower levels through playing regulations can provide some flexibility for less able players.
Your concerns are well made and valid. To repeat an answer given above, ECB ACO will be issuing specific training and guidance on the application and interpretation of the new law as and that will include guidance on beamers.
email us at ecb. aco @ ecb. co. uk contact us on 0121 446 2710 19