1.2 Why the ECB ACO is providing
new information
During the summer of 2015, a case
was brought unsuccessfully against
the ECB ACO in an English Court. The
claimant, a fielder, alleged that the
umpires had breached the duty of
care owed to him in allowing play to
start in conditions he alleged to be
dangerous and were the cause of an
injury he suffered while fielding. The
judgement reviewed and commented
upon the evidence, as to how and
when the umpires had carried out
their inspections and the tests they
had applied in deciding whether and
when play could commence. The
judge held that the umpires owed a
duty of care to the players to enforce
the rules and Laws of Cricket. His
judgement went on to describe the
factors to be considered in deciding
whether the conditions were
dangerous or unreasonable, as well
as the procedures involved in making
this decision. The judge endorsed
the central test set out in Law 3.8(b)
and the factors set out in detail in
Law 3.9(d) of the 2000 Code (2003
edition). This Guidance draws upon
the lessons learnt from this case.
At the outset, it should be noted that
cases against umpires, and indeed
sports officials generally, are rare.
Whilst it is prudent to take stock of
the position and provide guidance
in light of the recent case referred to
immediately above (which was the
first time such a case has been brought
against ECB ACO), there should be no
cause for undue alarm in the umpiring
or wider cricketing community. The
case also highlights the benefits of
having robust insurance cover in place
(which is of course available to umpires
through the ECB ACO).
1.3 The major points
The judgement makes clear that
umpires DO owe a duty of care to
the players to uphold and enforce
the Laws of Cricket, the relevant
playing conditions and the ECB
Directives. For GW&L decisions,
this duty of care means the umpires
must not allow play to take place if
they conclude that the conditions
are dangerous or unreasonable. This
duty to look after the players’ safety
is not removed by club officials, or
the players themselves, saying that
they accept the risk. Duty of care
means the umpires should carry out
a thorough inspection of the GW&L
conditions to ensure they are not
dangerous (ie there is no actual and
foreseeable risk to the safety of any
player or umpire) or unreasonable
(see 3.4 on page 9) in order to
determine whether play can take
place.
Laws 3.8 and 3.9 require ‘the
umpires together’ to agree that
conditions are, or are not, dangerous
or unreasonable and describe the
consequences, in terms of allowing
or not allowing play.
In light of the recent case, play
should not start, resume or continue
unless BOTH umpires AGREE that
conditions are neither dangerous
nor unreasonable. The umpires
should th \