England once again finds itself embroiled in a spirit of cricket debate – and this time, they may have a right to feel aggrieved.
On their way to a commanding 146-run victory over Zimbabwe at the U19 World Cup, controversy erupted in the 17th over of their innings when batter Hamza Shaikh was shockingly given out ‘handled ball’.
The ultra-rare dismissal came about after Hamza inside-edged an attempted drive into his pads, with the ball stopping dead at his feet.
Picking the ball up and throwing it to wicketkeeper Ryan Kamwemba, the batter was shocked when the Zimbabweans immediately began appealing.
After a lengthy consultation between the umpires and a video review, Hamza was adjudged out for 1 according to Law 37.4 of the MCC rules of cricket, which states that ‘either batter is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder’.
After Alex Carey’s stumping of Jonny Bairstow during the 2023 Ashes sparked a tidal wave of fury around English cricket, this far dodgier dismissal was never going to escape without provoking a strong reaction, even if it hardly mattered in the context of the result.
Leading the charge was former England great Stuart Broad, who posted on X that Zimbabwe needed to ‘get a grip’.
“He’s passing a stationary ball back to the fielder? Doing him a favour! Cant give that out,” Broad wrote.
Even harsher was the view of former England seamer Tim Bresnan, who blamed the umpires for the dismissal – calling it ‘some of the worst officiating I’ve ever seen’.
“Embarrassing decision. Typical example of those who know the rules but don’t know the game,” Bresnan wrote.
Commentating on TalkSport, another former England fast bowler in Steve Harmison also expressed his displeasure.
“We have a way of kicking ourselves between the legs in this great game we love,” he said.
“Common sense doesn’t always come into officiating — I don’t know why. Common sense would get on so much better if we had some.”
After seeing a replay, Harmison added that Hamza’s dismissal was a ‘shocker’.
“If you’re getting given out for that then the game’s gone, it really has. How can an umpire give that out?” he said
Such incidents are extremely rare in international cricket; though batters will often pick up a stationary ball near them and return it to the fielding team, the most they usually receive in return is a stern rebuke.
Famously, Australian opener Andrew Hilditch was given out handled ball in an acrimonious Test against Pakistan at the WACA in 1979.
At the non-striker’s end, Hilditch gathered a wayward throw and returned the ball to bowler Sarfaraz Nawaz, who had begun appealing the moment he had picked it up.
The incident was seen as revenge for another controversial incident earlier in the Test, where Australian quick Alan Hurst had ‘Mankaded’ Pakistan’s Sikander Bakht at the non-striker’s end – which, despite recent examples in limited-overs cricket, remains the most recent example of the dismissal in Tests.
Interestingly, the handled ball is the second such dismissal in recent history at the U19 World Cup, with the 2018 tournament marred when South Africa’s Jiveshan Pillay was given out for picking up the ball and returning it to the West Indies.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
finally someone is speaking my language :happy:
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I think you are missing my point...and Bresnan's point. We know the rules as they stand. So do the umps. That's not our point.
Mike
Roar Rookie
Don, I agree that calling a dead ball would've been a good outcome, but I think you're missing the real point here. The umpires were simply not in a position to be able to call a dead ball. Maybe an umpire in a club game could get away with that, but at this level, that can't be done. The umpires must follow a process. As with any appeal, it is assessed by the current laws of the game, not whether that umpire thinks the law should be applied or not. The only way for the situation to have been avoided was for the umpire to ask if the captain wanted to maintain their appeal. Once the captain says "yes" then the appeal has to go through the same process as any other appeal. It's like a legal process. You can't have a precedence where an umpire decides whether or not to apply a rule of the game. However silly the rule. Whenever an appeal is made, a decision is made. A side can call for a review if they have that available. At no stage can the umpires refuse to make a decision or deny a review, and just call "dead ball". it just isn't an option Don.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Yeah pretty basic to me. Also getting mankaded - as non-striker, I always watched the ball leave the bowler's hand. I'm not letting anyone get me out cheaply.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I agree the incident probably wouldn't have happened in a normal game of cricket but this is a tournament where these guys are playing for keeps as the England batsman found out. I too have seen most of the things you've described in finals especially and you're right again, things did get ugly, but when calmer heads prevailed hours later, people were able to acknowledge who was at fault even though they didn't like it. I'm not saying I like what happened to the Pommie batsman, but thems is the Laws of the Game
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
When is the ball dead? Is it when the ball stops moving?
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
A mankad is part of the contest between bat and ball. you went out of your ground not paying attention, you got stumped. no-one forces you out of your crease. It is completley comparable to a stumping
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
agree, a Mankad is a completely legitimate run out and the pearl-clutching of those who can't see that is frankly bewildering
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Why is it that the English have such a hard time understanding that following the rules in a game is important? You don't adjudicate professional sport based "on the vibe of the thing", the rules are LITERALLY the framework for how the game is played! It's unfortunate for the poor lad, but it is completely self-inflicted. You don't give the ball to the enemy team when you play, A. because it's not your job to make it easy for them, it's your job to beat them, and B. there is literally a rule saying you are a pretty good chance of being given out if you do and there is an appeal.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
This is the comment the English need to read
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Harsh, and the Zimbabwe team should not be surprised if no-one ever helps them get the ball back again, but everyone knows that it's in the rules. And why do the enemy team a favour by giving them the ball anyway? Let them waste the energy coming to get it unless they ask for it back nicely (and very audibly). Very unfortunate and unpleasant dismissal, but the rules are pretty clear on it. Don't play professional sport like you're in the backyard with your mates seems to be the key takeaway from this
Blink
Roar Rookie
And the ball didn't become lodged in equipment. What were you watching?
Blink
Roar Rookie
Not surprised at the Tim Bresnan comment. So typical of a quick. His brain is thicker than a 4 x 2 lumbar. Blaming the umpire for following the rules. How pathetic are the Poms!
Ben Pobjie
Expert
But do forgive us, Cricket Master, for transgressing against the holy principles you laid down in your glorious SERIOUS CRICKET CAREER.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Then it’s unsportsmanlike to run anyone out at all.
DTM
Roar Rookie
It does matter if the fielding side says you can do it - 37.4 Returning the ball to a fielder Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
You see it in Test matches all the time. It doesn’t matter if the fielding side says you can do it, that doesn’t change the law. So you’d be fine if they still appealed? There’s a reason Waugh, Vaughan and Julian all panned it on the Fox coverage yesterday. I’m sure 98% of first class cricketers would agree.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
You can really spot the people who’ve never played serious cricket. It wasn’t just in the 80s, but pretty much throughout the history of cricket. Because players embraced the idea that you want to get people out as part of the contest between bat and ball.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
A good captain doesnt stain his career.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
I haven't seen footage of the Green incident, so I won't comment on that. A dead ball ruling would be a way to cover such a decision, but as I said to another poster, had the non-striker taken off for a kamikaze single when Hamza went to pick up the ball, the players and umpires would surely consider the ball live in that instance. Either both taking a single and picking up the ball have to be considered the same way in terms of the play being live, or the decision is arbitrary.