Ground, Weather and Light
Thomas Edward Bartlett versus ECB ACO – Birmingham County Court
Facts of the Case
It had rained on Thursday evening and
again heavily on Friday. On Saturday
morning, the day of the match, it was
raining, although not heavily. The home
team captain, the claimant (known as
the plaintiff) and his groundsman
decided the ground was unfit for play
and described the ground as
‘waterlogged’. The home team captain
called the captain of the visiting team
to inform him. The visiting team captain
exercised his right under league rules
to have the umpires decide on the
fitness of the ground.
Both appointed umpires were current
members of ACO and trained
appropriately; one was Level 2 and the
other Level 1. It was a regular
second/third tier game of league
cricket between an away team doing
well in the Second Division of the
Warwickshire League against a home
team doing less well. The away team
wanted to play because (as the plaintiff
asserted) they felt they were likely to
win and rise higher in the league.
The umpires carried out their prematch duties carefully. They observed
that the ground was ‘a little soft’ but
not ‘squelchy’, and the grass in the
outfield long and not drying as quickly
as they would have liked. In the
umpires’ view there were no puddles or
standing water. In their opinion
conditions in the outfield were neither
dangerous nor unreasonable. However,
the pitch that had been prepared was
unplayable. At the umpires’ request, a
decision was made to move to a pitch
higher up the square that was in a drier
area. The start was delayed.
The umpires inspected the ground
continuously after they arrived, with
further inspections at 2.00pm and
2.45pm. Eventually, the umpires
decided that play could start at
3.45pm. In the opinion of the umpires
the ground, at that time, was fit for
play.
The game started at 3.45pm. The away
team batted first and scored 143–9 in
20 overs. The home team then made
70–8 off 25 overs and the match was
drawn.
14
In the first over of the away team’s
innings, the home team captain (who
had not wanted to play), turned to
chase a ball to the boundary from the
slips and, as he approached the ball, he
executed a sliding stop. He gathered
the ball and stood up to throw it in. As
he placed his weight on his left leg he
felt excruciating pain in that leg and
collapsed. The game was stopped for
45 minutes and an ambulance was sent
for. The captain was taken to hospital.
He was off work for several weeks.
Prior to the resumption of the game at
4.47pm, one of the umpires asked the
acting home team captain and the
away team captain whether they were
willing to continue. Both, without
hesitation, agreed that they were. The
first time the fielding side asked for a
rag to dry the ball was the 11th over –
which was clearly some indication of
the condition of the outfield.
Warwickshire League, and myself – as
Head of ECB ACO).
Specifically, each umpire gave a
detailed account of the inspections
they had carried out and the tests they
applied in determining whether, and
when, play could safely proceed.
The Judgement
1.
The judgement makes it clear that
umpires DO owe a duty of care to
the players to uphold and enforce
the Laws of Cricket, the playing
conditions and the ECB Directives.
2.
The judgement adopts the Laws of
Cricket test for ‘dangerous’ set out
in Law 3.8(b) – ‘an actual or
foreseeable risk to the safety of
any player or umpire’.
3.
The judgement adopted Law
3.9(d) of the prior edition of the
Laws (the 2010 edition), which
makes it clear that the fact that the
grass and ball are wet does not
make it dangerous or
unreasonable. It is only when it is
‘so wet or slippery as to deprive
the bowler of a reasonable
foothold, the fielders of the power
of free movement, or the batsmen
of the ability to play their strokes
or run between the wickets’ that
play cannot proceed.
4.
The judgement went on to review
the conflicting evidence as to the
condition of the outfield – was it
‘boggy’ or ‘soggy’ as the plaintiff
maintained? The umpires strongly
disagreed with that description
and rejected any suggestion that
the outfield was ‘squelchy’ or had
puddles or standing water. Rather,
the outfield, the umpires
maintained, was a ‘litt