Hands up if you know what Law 27.1 of cricket says. Anyone? Someone did last night, as the Law caused ridiculous scenes at the Adelaide Oval.
As the Adelaide Strikers lost to the Perth Scorchers on a summer evening, cricket’s laws were enforced correctly. But Law 27.1 needs to be rewritten immediately.
No, this isn’t a protest against authority, but a call for logic to prevail.
The Strikers were 5 for 51 and chasing 190 to win when Kane Richardson swivelled in his crease.
His right leg hit the base of middle and leg stump, and the wicket lit up like a Christmas tree on December 1st.
Logic tells you that Richardson should have been given out. Well he was, briefly, but after a minute, he wasn’t.
Yes, that’s right. Richardson made it to the boundary before being recalled to the crease.
Why? Because nobody from the Scorchers appealed to the umpires. It seems farcical, but the umpires were actually 100% right.
Law 27.1 of cricket says: “Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made.”
So, under that logic, a batsman could be cleaned bowled, and unless someone from the fielding team appeals, he’s not out.
That’s right. Put the bails back on and let’s play.
What is considered an appeal was also shoved into the spotlight.
Adam Voges was wearing a microphone for the Fox Sports coverage and revealed that wicketkeeper Tom Triffitt asked the umpires if they “could have a look at that, but obviously that doesn’t constitute an appeal.”
Law 27.4 actually instructs cricketers on how to appeal. It advises that “How’s that?” covers all potential ways of getting out.
In that case, the Scorchers only have themselves to blame.
Somebody should’ve appealed, but it’s once again a case of Big Bash cricket having to abide by the etiquette of something far more formal.
It’s like the kid who rocks up to a wedding wearing clothes more suited to a rock concert.
We have players wearing microphones and stumps that light up; surely we can have a man who treads on his wicket given out without the need for an appeal.
T20 cricket was designed to be sports entertainment. It was meant to be for the masses. Try explaining Law 27.1 with a straight face to a new fan.
That said, this type of scene would surely still excite comment if it took place during the Boxing Day Test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
The law needs to be changed, although after this, it’s doubtful anyone in the BBL will make the mistake of not appealing again.
GaryGnu
Guest
Brian mentioned one example of this law in action. The other I can think of is M Clarke in the infamous Sydney test of 2008 being caught at slip and not leaving the crease until given out following the most cursory of appeals. Neither example did anything for the spirit of cricket however they are the laws of cricket. I can't see why the laws such as this should be varied according to the format of the game played.
dynamitedave
Roar Rookie
in 3rds at school I opened the innings. Played a glorious hook shot off the first ball of the day, sadly I got too much momentum up and swivelled round and my foot clipped the stumps dislodging a bail. the other team was busy looking for the ball in the bush, when I heard the umpire say he's out.none of the fielders had seen my feet dislodge a bail. I knew the rule (I was a cricket tragic even back then) the team hadn't appealed and I knew I wasn't out. but then one of the fielders said hows that..... The umpire was the school teacher from the other team...I approached him, told him the rule and continued to walk to the pavilion (or at least the kopper log seating). next week I was captain of the team. (and given the nickname Tunga, because I didn't run between the wickets much) In primary school I was no balled for chucking..... When I was 22 or so I got into a bar fight. When ricky finally retired I thought I might get a go, sadly the selectors have their eye on the future and deem a fat balding 41 year old who doesn't even play cricket as not being under their watch.
Benno
Guest
They had up until the bowler got to the top of his run-up for his next ball to appeal. Why didn't Katich just say "How's That?" quietly when he was talking to both umpires about the rules. Umpire - "nobody has appealed, we can't give him out without an appeal" Katich - "oh, ok then how's that??" Umpire - "thanks you, he is now out" Could've been cleared up that simply! The other issue here is that it wasn't that long ago that they were complaining about and threatening to penalise players that over-appeal. If I was bowling every time I walked past the umpire I'd say "how's that?" just in case. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Brett McKay
Expert
I haven't even got to sightscreens yet....
polly
Guest
So the WK Triffit asked the umpires to have a look at the incident, what did they think he was asking about ? That he just wanted to see a replay for his viewing pleasure ? Sounds like a query to me.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
I saw it live and have seen several replays. I haven't changed my mind, but maybe I haven't explained myself very well. He was very reluctant get off the field - he kept turning around the whole way back, and then just before he got to the rope he stopped completely. Clearly he was under the impression that he was out - that's why he was walking towards the boundary. But for some reason he thought there was a chance that he was going to get a reprieve - which is why he was dragging his feet. What I'm saying is that he either he knew instantly he'd trodden on the stumps and dislodged at least one bail (in which case he should have walked quickly off as per a usual dismissal), or an umpire had told him he was out (in which case he should have accepted the decision and walked quickly off). If it was the second option then he not only was in in breach of the spirit of the game, was in breach of an actual Law (i.e. not accepting an umpire's decision). If he didn't think he was out, why was he walking towards the boundary (albeit very slowly)?
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
In my experience, not exactly current admittedly, the division re umpiring occurred quite young. All kids playing organised cricket started out with adults as umpires _ someone's dad, a coach, or just the old bloke who lived over the other side of the ground. But get to about 13, and things changed. The talented kids continued to have adult umpires, still parents and/or coaches in some cases, but also qualified umpires appointed by the local association. The gun players get to adulthood without ever having to perform umpiring duties. Whereas the other kids, the vast majority, the lower-grade and park adult cricketers of the future, had to umpire themselves. The batting team would take it in turns to supply two umpires at a time. Not everyone wanted to umpire, but it was expected of you. It was a test of your concentration and powers of observation _ an already dismissed batsman was more likely to make a good fist of umpiring than someone waiting to bat. Your teammates also had the reasonable expectation that the press-ganged umpire would have a reasonable knowledge of the laws of the game. Last but not least, forced umpiring was a test of character. You're umpiring, your team needs only three runs to win the match, you're nine down but your best batsman is facing, and for some reason he plays across a straight one and is plumb LBW. What do you do? Support your team and give him not out, risking abuse and physical intimidation from the outraged fielding side? Or do the right thing morally, put your finger in the air and brave your teammates' wrath? Some ordinary players found they quite enjoyed umpiring and decided to specialise, thus staying in the game for much longer than most players. But umpiring is tough.
Old Creeker
Guest
Watch out Rabbitz - Brett's about to go on a rant now!
josh
Roar Rookie
Warne has talked about this as a strategy; not trying to take the wicket of a slow batsman.
josh
Roar Rookie
Law 27.1 and 27.2 both say the batsman when out can walk with out an appeal. e.g. what happens when bowled, caught in the deep etc...
langou
Roar Guru
Did he not walk?
The Dish
Guest
Also I think the fact it was hit wicket probably helped Katich make the decision. It's a bit of a hollow wicket when someone smashes a pull shot into the deep and knocks a bail off in the process.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
This has crossed my mind before with 50 over cricekt as well. There are certainly trimes when the fielding team is not looking to get a wicket, and the idea of deliberately dropping a catch may have crossed people's minds; as may "retired - out" in order to bring in a big hitter or somebody more suited to take on the bowlers of the final overs. It would need to be a fairly specific set of circumstances though
Gordon smith
Guest
If you had a 20/20 match and had a player struggling to score with big hitters waiting to get in could you as a team decide not to appeal for anything as it would be an advantage to have the player stay in? I realize he could walk. Will we ever have a time given the right circumstances when a team deliberately drops catches because it would be to their advantage to prevent certain players from having a bat?
Red Kev
Guest
That is a good point, I agree with that.
Brett McKay
Expert
That's the bit I still don't get Christo...
Brett McKay
Expert
Part of problem Rabbitz is that the kids themselves never umpire on their way up, before parents or teachers or coaches do it, and then if they play some rep games, they often get official umpires. So when they start playing in the lower grades, they've literally never umpired before. The obvious answer would be for clubs/rep progams to conduct umpiring classes and clinics, but that needs to be funded somehow. Any player should know how to umpire though, it should be obvious. And score for that matter, they need scoring classes too!!
Russ
Guest
He walked off because the umpires consulted and one told him he was out (lifted the finger and all). Whether they did that because of an appeal, the suggestion of Triffit, or off their own initiative isn't clear. It also isn't clear why Katich called him back, if he'd wanted him out he could have left Richardson to walk off or made the necessary appeal.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Yep it's very confusing. It would have been very interesting to see, not just what would have happened on the field, but also the media reaction off the field if the match was in the balance at the time
Marto of Sydney
Guest
Christo - what are you on about? "RIchardson trod on his wicket and should have just walked off" said your first post, and now you're saying "Why did he walk off?" Obviously you've seen the incident now and changed your mind. Finding a loophole? He was about to step over the boundary rope and Katich called him back. He didn't ask to be called back, he was just confused - but he went, and Katich stepped in. If you've got a problem with the Spirit of Cricket here, perhaps you should be blaming Katich's mislaid sportsmanship.