Law Queries
We ask Mark Williams, MCC’ s Laws of Cricket Advisor and ECB ACO Member, for his interpretation of topical incidents experienced by our members, or those that occur across the world of cricket.
Cliff Loverock, umpire and Level 2 tutor, emailed us copying the following paragraph from espncricinfo. com:
An ECB spokesman confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that, if a batsman struck the ball and it deflected off the shield and was subsequently caught, the batsman would be given out, in contrast to the situation for fielders wearing protective headgear. If the ball strikes the helmet before looping to a fielder, dead ball is called.
Surely this has to be wrong on two counts:
1. It is contrary to the Laws of the game given that a catch cannot be made from a fielder’ s protection aid( helmet). Why is an umpire’ s protection aid different?
2. I cannot find anywhere in the Laws [ Law 23.4 ] that indicates‘ dead ball’ is called after striking a fielder’ s helmet. I have always understood that the ball was still live and further action( ie a run out) could take place. Has this now been altered or have I misunderstood the Laws?
The reason I looked on this website was that I was led there after asking the question‘ Could a batsman be caught off an umpire’ s shield?’ My query was prompted following a question on this topic raised in our recent umpire’ s meeting. I was expecting the answer to be‘ no’. How can I explain this inconsistency to our members?
Mark Williams Replies: Law 32.3( d) A fair catch states:
A catch shall be considered to be fair if( d) a fielder catches the ball after it has touched an umpire, another fielder or the other batsman. However, it is not a fair catch if at any time after having been struck by the bat and before the catch is completed, the ball has touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder.
Law 39.2( b) Stumped states:
If the ball touches a protective helmet worn by the wicketkeeper, the ball is still in play but the striker shall not be out stumped. He will, however, be liable to be run out in these circumstances if there is subsequent contact between the ball and any fielder.
Law 38. 2( iii) Batsman not run out states:
( iii) the ball, having been played by the striker, or having come off his person, directly strikes a protective helmet worn by a fielder and, without any other contact with him or any contact with any other fielder, rebounds directly on to the wicket. However, the ball remains in play and either batsman may be run out in the circumstances of 1. above( the wicket is fairly put down by the action of a fielder) if a wicket is subsequently put down.
An umpire’ s person and any equipment that he is wearing( including any helmet) is effectively equivalent to the non-striker’ s equipment or person. The ball remains live after contact with him or his equipment, as it is when it hits the non-striker, and may be subsequently caught by a fielder to dismiss the striker, or be subsequently used to run out a batsman. There is no inconsistency here.
The ball is certainly not dead just because it has hit a fielder’ s worn helmet. The striker cannot be caught if this has happened( nor stumped if it is the wicketkeeper’ s helmet), but it is possible for either batsman to be subsequently run out provided that there has been additional contact between a fielder and the ball, either before or after the ball strikes the helmet( in the case of the wicketkeeper’ s helmet, the additional contact needs to be after the ball has hit the helmet).
Please note: As pointed out in a previous issue, Tom Smith’ s page 200, section 4, first paragraph, second sentence is incorrect in including an umpire or the non-striker.
That is the current Law, but there is a proposal, currently under consideration, now that helmets are routinely worn( compulsorily in the professional and junior games), that a fielder’ s worn helmet should become a normal part of his person, and that catches and stumpings should be allowed if the ball strikes such a helmet. Discussion continues and a decision on this has not yet been made.
Mark provided the following further incidents that occurred recently and will interest readers:
1. Here is another interesting incident which occurred in a recent Indian Premier League( IPL) match:
The striker came down the pitch to an off-spinner and the ball( which was a fair delivery) passed between bat and striker’ s person without touching anything; it subsequently hit the wicketkeeper on the knee, bounced up and struck his helmet, fell into his gloves and he fairly put the wicket down with the striker out of his ground. There was an appeal. How would you answer the appeal if you were the striker’ s end umpire in the following three scenarios?
( i) As described above, and how would the striker be dismissed?
( ii) If the ball had bounced directly from helmet to the stumps without any contact with another fielder.
( iii) As described above, but the delivery was a no ball.
8 email us at ecb. aco @ ecb. co. uk contact us on 0121 446 2710