Association of Cricket Officials Issue 30 | Page 23

umpire, would have passed above bail high, to be called No ball unless, in the opinion of the umpire, the batsman chooses to strike the ball other than to prevent or attempt to prevent the ball from hitting their person. Issue guidance as to what is to be deemed dangerous if you must, but please allow the umpire to act in accordance with Law 2.6 and allow them to be the sole judges of fair and unfair play in any particular match. This would give the same fixed reference point for everyone playing the game, would not diminish a bowler’s options for dismissing someone from a full toss, would significantly reduce the potential for conflict when a batsman chooses to hit a full toss in an attempt to gain an advantage from such a ball, and is unlikely to make legitimate a ball which would be called a No ball under Law 41.71 as it currently stands. If you want umpires to ‘Create an Outstanding Game Day Experience’ which, I hope is what all umpires want to do, help us to do this by letting us make the decisions we are there to make. I accept there could be more No balls but at least the penalty would be commensurate with the nature of the particular ball bowled and not a great deal different from slightly overstepping in the delivery stride. Thereafter, if having decided a ball is a No ball, write Law 41.7 in such a way that allows the umpire to decide whether the ball was dangerous and, if so, to go down the warning route. Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor Thank you for your suggestions on the question of No balls for dangerous non-pitching deliveries. I understand your frustration with the Law, but since this is a Law to prevent dangerous bowling, it would not make sense to have the height uniform for any batsman – as you point out, batsmen come in very different shapes and sizes, and a dangerous delivery to Mr Taylor may practically be knee height to Mr Garner, and thus not dangerous at all. On your second point, about a batsman attempting to play at the ball other than to protect themselves, I see this as becoming problematic immediately. Should a batsman decide that the ball is too high, and thus not play a shot, but the umpire determine it was, in fact, fractionally under waist height – these calls are often very close – you are asking the batsman to jeopardise his wicket. As with all of the game, the umpires are indeed the sole judges of fair and unfair play, but within the context of the Laws. Having a one-size-fits-all policy on No balls would not make this anymore the case. I hope that makes clear why there is not, at this stage, any plan to change the Law drastically in the ways you suggest. Many thanks. Mike Carter, Berkshire ACO Answered by Jonny Singer, MCC Laws of Cricket Advisor In Australia, Queensland fielder Marnus Labuschagne was penalised in a JLT One Day Cup match. Having missed the ball at mid-off, he immediately shaped to throw it, even though he didn’t have it. His action did cause the striker to hesitate halfway down the pitch. Eventually, following consultation, the bowler’s end umpire signalled five penalty runs to the batting side. But this match took place on 29 September, so was it being played under the new 2017 Code, or was it using a set of regs laid down in anticipation of the Law changes? The reason I ask, is that the procedure for new Law 41.5 was clearly not followed in entirety. Thank you for your question about the incident in Australia – MCC has in fact published a blog post on this matter on our Laws blog (https://www.lords.org/news/our-blogs/the-laws- blogs/the-laws-blog/deceiving-the-batsman/) It is impossible to know from this video alone whether the umpires simply awarded five penalty runs or followed the full procedure. Given their experience and standing, I would suspect that the batsmen were offered the option to swap ends, and the fielder was reported after the game. However, as you say, it is not clear from the video. As for the date of the game, although the fixture was played before 1 October, the Australian authorities adopted the new Laws a couple of days early, so as to prevent Laws changing mid-season – their season began just a few days before the October transition. This sort of mock fielding (attempted deception) has been absorbed into the existing ‘obstruction’ Law (now 41.5), and so there should also have been a ‘report’, and the batters should have been offered the chance to swap ends. Finally, on the matter of hand clapping, if it is a deliberate attempt to deceive, it should be punished as such. I didn’t notice either of those happening in the video clip I watched. But the incident also prompts me to enquire regarding a similar habit which has become even more commonplace in the modern game, certainly at club level. I refer to the fielder’s tendency to clap hands whilst the ball sails well past him – clearly in an attempt to make the batsman think it’s the sound of the ball smacking into the palm of the hand. This is just as much an attempt to deceive the batters, as the fake throw. Ultimately, context is everything and each case will have its own facts. The clapping that you describe is less clear-cut than pretending to have and throw the ball. The final decision is with the umpires and, as with any Law like this, it is always going to be for the umpires to decide what is ‘deliberate’ and what is ‘deception’. I hope that answers your question. Many thanks. Can you clarify please whether or not we will be expected to apply new Law 41.5 with all of its consequences? email us at [email protected] contact us on 0121 446 2710 23