Your Letters
Tim Hart, Sussex ACO
I am an umpire in the East Sussex Cricket League and have noticed a trend over the last few years. It has become apparent that many bowlers, particularly youngsters, are grunting on delivery, some rather loudly. This is somewhat disturbing to hear this every time the bowler delivers the ball from the umpire’ s point of view, but more importantly to the batsmen, mainly the striker.
Could you construe it being a deliberate attempt to distract the batsmen under Law 42.4 and 5?
Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor Thank you for your question about the Laws of Cricket.
As you note, under Laws 41.4 and 41.5, any distraction would have to be deliberate to be punishable( this sounds like it would be 41.4, as the grunting is likely to be before the ball has been received by the batsman). If the umpire were to decide it was a deliberate ploy to distract the striker, this would result in five penalty runs and the reporting of the bowler.
However, while it is annoying, and something one would hope coaches would discourage in younger players, it is not illegal if the grunt is not done as an attempt to distract the striker. As ever, this is always going to come down to an umpire’ s interpretation of the intent.
If, however, it is distracting to the striker, the umpire should call Dead ball under Law 20.4.2.6 – so no bowler should ever gain an advantage by accidentally grunting.
I hope that answers your question. Many thanks.
Tony Lord, Buckinghamshire ACO
Regarding the correspondence on the change to 41.7 Bowling of dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries in issue 29:
Jonny Singer ' s suggestion, that leagues and other recreational competitions may legislate within their regulations to ameliorate the new‘ one caution and off’ Law, is ill advised, in this instance.
As stated in the opening line of his reply, the decision to change 41.7 is about safety. If a governing body of a section of recreational cricket weakens the new Law by retaining the existing two caution and off within its playing regulations, it may lay itself open to litigation should a player be injured by a third‘ beamer’ from the same bowler.
Most county youth games are already regulated by having slow bowlers subject to the same‘ waist-high’ restrictions as fast bowlers; the MCC has now written in the statute books a Law that must be universally applied with all the inherent downsides, especially to the development of bowlers in youth cricket.
Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor
Thank you for your response to my answer in the last issue.
I am in total agreement with you – however, as I explained last time, it is the prerogative of any league that wishes to alter their playing conditions to do so.
At MCC we always hope the game will be played within the Laws as much as possible, without need for editing. That said, we understand that playing conditions are part of the game, and should any leagues wish to go by different conditions it is for them to consider the legal ramifications and safety concerns.
Many thanks.
Norman Moore, Hertfordshire ACO
Law 24.2.2.3 does not clarify when‘ Penalty time’ starts. How long does a fielder have to be off the field before this is applied and can bowl? The old Law stated 15 minutes, has this changed?
Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor Thank you for your question.
As you note, there is now no grace period for‘ Penalty time’. The MCC’ s summary document on the new Laws explains:
‘ Unlike the previous Law, however, there is no grace time at all( a player under the 2000 Code could be off the field for up to 15 minutes without penalty), meaning a player who leaves the field for one over cannot come back onto the field and immediately bowl.’
I hope that clears it up. Many thanks.
Paul Millions, Norfolk ACO
I would like to add my thoughts to the debate on the new Law 41.7.
I have three issues with this Law:
• The‘ virtual’ and fluctuating height defined by Law 41.71 – imagine if you will Joel Garner batting with James Taylor – the No ball height could vary by something approaching 18 inches from ball to ball.
• A batsman seeking to gain an advantage by hitting a ball which he considers to be a No ball by virtue of Law 41.71 and being caught out.
• The obligatory warning for a ball which is not dangerous and being powerless to give a warning for a ball which is dangerous( eg a groin-high full toss bowled at 85 – 90 mph).
In my view there is an argument for the Law to state any ball which passes or, in the opinion of an
22 email us at ecb. aco @ ecb. co. uk contact us on 0121 446 2710