Unable to use a runner, Sydney retired Jordan Silk on the final ball because he couldn’t run the two that was needed for victory – some questioning if the ‘loophole’ was in the spirit of the game.
I don't have a problem with the convention, but if a batter decides to take a run the fielding team don't have a leg to stand on because it's allowed in the rules and would be very easy to ban if the MCC wanted to.
It's really entirely on the batter as to whether they wish to observe the convention or not, and virtually every batter in the world does. I can understand why breaking the convention would upset a lot of people, but if the custodians of the game can't be bothered to write it into the laws I really don't think it's that important.
All institutions work better with sound conventions and culture as well as strict laws. It’s healthy to have a convention like that. And if a bowler or fielder takes aim at a batsman as they sometimes do in an effort to intimidate, but it deflects off the batsman, then the batsman should feel perfectly free to take a run.
It really doesn't matter, but I don't see why it's not a valid retired hurt. Silk was injured and wouldn't have retired his innings if fully fit. That's all the actual law requires for a retired not out. He doesn't have to acquire the injury whilst batting.
According to the letter of the law the retiring batter only need inform the umpire he is retiring with an injury. Doesn't require approval. Not sure how that works in practice if the umpire doesn't believe the explanation. The opposing captain has zero say in the matter. They are only consulted if a batter retired when not injured or hurt and wishes to resume his innings latter (they need to give their blessing otherwise the retired player cannot resume and is considered retired out).
Whilst Silk was not injured whilst batting (having been injured earlier), but this is not a requirement to be retired hurt. He just needs to retire because of the injury - the law says nothing about when the injury needed to have been acquired. Clearly, if Silk was not injured he would not have retired his innings (being normally one of the quickest blokes in the team), so I don't have a problem with this being a valid retired hurt.
Even the overthrows I see as an accepted convention rather than “the spirit”. I mean the MCC have had 150+ years to ban overthrows which come off a batsman. Players have just decided they won’t do it, if someone does choose to do it, it’s hardly an unsportsmanlike act for mine – the rules permit it.
The Spirit of Cricket should be limited to actual poor behaviour. Eg faking an injury for tactical reasons (to retire not out instead of out or to get a concussion substitute). On field verbal abuse of the opposition etc.
I guess the controversy here is that he is listed (on the CA website) as retired hurt. So whilst you can reitre at anytime for any reason, it appears he was retiring hurt. There is a difference but should there be for 20/20?
Under the rules of cricket, a batsman retiring hurt has the freedom to come back in whereas a retired batsman does not.
So, I think a batsman retiring hurt needs to get the approval of the umpire and the opposing captain.
However, a batsman retiring needs no approval.
Silk should have been listed as retired unless Siddle and the umpire agreed he was retired hurt.
Why not turn this story around and discuss what a clever piece of leadership this was? That someone in the Sixers had the smarts to do this at that time is pretty impressi IMO.
It used to happen quite regularly in tour matches. If Australia was in England, they often insisted on 3 day games so blokes would retire to give others a hit. These were still classed as first class games though.
I’m glad this comment came up, because I think a lot of people are missing this point. You can retire for any reason. Whilst the umpire’s accepted this as retired hurt, I’m sure the Sixers would be equally happy with retired out.
If the laws of cricket allow a batter to retire for literally any reason, I struggle to see how doing just that is against the spirit of the game.
Nothing to discuss. Batter can retire any time. In Silk’s case he was injured and could have done himself more damage trying to run two, so it made sense. Law 25 says:
25.4 BATTER RETIRING
25.4.1 A batter may retire at any time during his/her innings when the ball is dead. The umpires, before allowing play to proceed, shall be informed of the reason for a batter retiring. (Note that, the umpires have to know whether the batter is retiring out or retiring hurt in which case they are allowed to return. For the last ball of a T20 game, the reason doesn’t matter.)
Happened to me once, up at The Chase.
Scores level, one ball remaining in the match, and I had to go in to bat at the non-striker's end. All that would matter was getting to the other end, as quickly as possible.
By the time I'd walked from the changeroom to the crease, I'd disposed of all gear except my bat. No pointless helmet, gloves, thigh-pad or pads. It was the quickest single I ever ran, having already backed up outrageously far.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
I don't have a problem with the convention, but if a batter decides to take a run the fielding team don't have a leg to stand on because it's allowed in the rules and would be very easy to ban if the MCC wanted to. It's really entirely on the batter as to whether they wish to observe the convention or not, and virtually every batter in the world does. I can understand why breaking the convention would upset a lot of people, but if the custodians of the game can't be bothered to write it into the laws I really don't think it's that important.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Fair point.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
All institutions work better with sound conventions and culture as well as strict laws. It’s healthy to have a convention like that. And if a bowler or fielder takes aim at a batsman as they sometimes do in an effort to intimidate, but it deflects off the batsman, then the batsman should feel perfectly free to take a run.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
It really doesn't matter, but I don't see why it's not a valid retired hurt. Silk was injured and wouldn't have retired his innings if fully fit. That's all the actual law requires for a retired not out. He doesn't have to acquire the injury whilst batting.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
According to the letter of the law the retiring batter only need inform the umpire he is retiring with an injury. Doesn't require approval. Not sure how that works in practice if the umpire doesn't believe the explanation. The opposing captain has zero say in the matter. They are only consulted if a batter retired when not injured or hurt and wishes to resume his innings latter (they need to give their blessing otherwise the retired player cannot resume and is considered retired out). Whilst Silk was not injured whilst batting (having been injured earlier), but this is not a requirement to be retired hurt. He just needs to retire because of the injury - the law says nothing about when the injury needed to have been acquired. Clearly, if Silk was not injured he would not have retired his innings (being normally one of the quickest blokes in the team), so I don't have a problem with this being a valid retired hurt.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
Even the overthrows I see as an accepted convention rather than “the spirit”. I mean the MCC have had 150+ years to ban overthrows which come off a batsman. Players have just decided they won’t do it, if someone does choose to do it, it’s hardly an unsportsmanlike act for mine – the rules permit it. The Spirit of Cricket should be limited to actual poor behaviour. Eg faking an injury for tactical reasons (to retire not out instead of out or to get a concussion substitute). On field verbal abuse of the opposition etc.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Laws and spirit are different. Eg why people don’t run overthrows if it deflects off a batsman. But this wasn’t against the spirit.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Yes, should have been retired out. Only difference with one ball to go was that it affects his batting average. Too bad.
JGK
Roar Guru
It's happened in Tests: http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1577 It cost Mahela a 50 average.
JGK
Roar Guru
I would have mankadded you.
DTM
Roar Rookie
I guess the controversy here is that he is listed (on the CA website) as retired hurt. So whilst you can reitre at anytime for any reason, it appears he was retiring hurt. There is a difference but should there be for 20/20? Under the rules of cricket, a batsman retiring hurt has the freedom to come back in whereas a retired batsman does not. So, I think a batsman retiring hurt needs to get the approval of the umpire and the opposing captain. However, a batsman retiring needs no approval. Silk should have been listed as retired unless Siddle and the umpire agreed he was retired hurt.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Yes you can see the agony he was in
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
That's what I meant by practice matches.
Rellum
Roar Guru
He retired hurt, that happens all the time
Paul
Roar Guru
Why not turn this story around and discuss what a clever piece of leadership this was? That someone in the Sixers had the smarts to do this at that time is pretty impressi IMO.
Paul
Roar Guru
It used to happen quite regularly in tour matches. If Australia was in England, they often insisted on 3 day games so blokes would retire to give others a hit. These were still classed as first class games though.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Except retiring only happens in juniors and practice matches.
Patrick
Roar Pro
I’m glad this comment came up, because I think a lot of people are missing this point. You can retire for any reason. Whilst the umpire’s accepted this as retired hurt, I’m sure the Sixers would be equally happy with retired out. If the laws of cricket allow a batter to retire for literally any reason, I struggle to see how doing just that is against the spirit of the game.
Ado Potato
Roar Rookie
Nothing to discuss. Batter can retire any time. In Silk’s case he was injured and could have done himself more damage trying to run two, so it made sense. Law 25 says: 25.4 BATTER RETIRING 25.4.1 A batter may retire at any time during his/her innings when the ball is dead. The umpires, before allowing play to proceed, shall be informed of the reason for a batter retiring. (Note that, the umpires have to know whether the batter is retiring out or retiring hurt in which case they are allowed to return. For the last ball of a T20 game, the reason doesn’t matter.)
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Happened to me once, up at The Chase. Scores level, one ball remaining in the match, and I had to go in to bat at the non-striker's end. All that would matter was getting to the other end, as quickly as possible. By the time I'd walked from the changeroom to the crease, I'd disposed of all gear except my bat. No pointless helmet, gloves, thigh-pad or pads. It was the quickest single I ever ran, having already backed up outrageously far.