ACO NEWSLETTER - Ecb - England and Wales Cricket Board

I believe this is a fairly easy Law to“fix”. The non-striker should be allowed toleave his ground to back up, with nopenalty to the batting side until either thebatsman has played the ball, or attempted toplay it. This is then similar to the actions ofthe wicketkeeper - where the ‘keeper cannottake the ball in front of the stumps if thebatsman hasn’t touched the ball. The samerisks apply to the non-striker as now, so ifhe is out of his ground when the ball is deflectedonto the stumps off a member of thefielding side, he is out run out. Alternatively,if the striker elects not to run - or ifhe does! - there is still the potential for arun out at the non-striker’s end.However this simple reworking of theLaw would reduce the workload of the nonstriker’sumpire; at present, the umpire ischecking for no-balls, is the non-striker inhis ground, was the bowler in his deliverystride, is the batsman out? Instead, the umpirecan check the no-ball, then immediatelyturn to the business end, where theimportant mechanics matter!Peter Woodman, Devon, wrote:Having read the Beyond the Boundarypiece in Edition 14, I found the conclusionboth illogically and unreasonably bias infavour of the batsman. There is nothing“fair” or “within the Spirit” for a nonstrikerto gain an unfair (in practice, “unreasonable”)advantage by advancing (orrepeatedly advancing) down the pitch beforea delivery is bowled. There is both alaw and a line – literally – why draw a different,moral, one? The “Spirit”, to mymind, is on the batsman to observe the law.The “put” should not even be on thebowler to remind the batsman, though, inpractice, most if not all, will give the “caution”first. The breach of either the law orthe warning will always be by the batsman,so why castigate the fielding side. If we areto penalise “one short”, for example, oftenby the very finest of margins, why shouldwe allow a batsman a yard or more advantageat the start of a potential run? What isa stumping, in essence, but the same thingat the other end? A balanced view, surely,should not conclude bowler “abuse” andKartik, his captain and “Athers” have allgot it spot on!Derek Rees, Wales, said:I am the Instructor and Chairman of theLlanelli Branch of ECB ACO and I have justread the above article and am, quite frankly,astounded that it suggests that the runningout of the non-striker who is trying to gainan unfair advantage is somehow unfair andagainst the “Spirit of the Game”Law 42.15 is quite specific. It permits thebowler to attempt to run out the non-strikerbefore the bowler enters his delivery strudewhere the non-striker is attempting to gainan advantage by starting to run early.If we, as umpires choose to ignore thisfact then I ask myself,where do wedraw the line. Dowe choose to ignorethe other penaltiesunder Law 42?I accept that, inthe “Spirit of theGame”, we as umpireswill ask thecaptain if he wantsthe appeal to stand.This is traditionaland it is normal for abowler to warn thenon-striker on thefirst occurrence.But, if the captainrefuses then that isit, the non-strikermust be given outand the game continues.To suggest thatthis action is unfaircannot be acceptableunder the Laws. It isquite clear that it isnot a “grey” are buta clearly laid downrequirement that thenon-striker shouldbe attempting togain an unfair advantage.Murali Kartik following his ‘mankading’ of Alex Barrow at theend of the county seasonECB ACO were pleased to receive John Holder’s thoughts and printthem below. We fully endorse his views.John Holder wrote:It is pure nonsense to accuse a bowler for unsporting behaviour when he runs out anon-striker who has left his ground early, especially when that batsman has previouslybeen warned for this act. The sole reason for a non-striker leaving his ground early isto increase his chances of getting to the other end as quickly as possible, thereby gainingan unfair advantage.Before the law was changed, abowler could get into his delivery strideand instead of releasing the ball, stop,wait till the non-striker has left hisground and break the wicket. That wastotally unsporting and could be regardedas bringing the game into disrepute. Thepowers that be rightly changed the lawso that the runout could only be affectedwhile the bowler was running up to thewicket. Once the bowler had reachedhis delivery stride he could not run thenon-striker out.For a non-striker to leave his groundwhile the bowler is running up is blatantcheating, doubly so when he has beenwarned previously. Gareth Batty wascorrect in upholding the appeal in thematch against Somerset and for Surreyto be accused of unsporting behaviour ispure hypocrisy. Only when non-strikerswho transgress are given out will thisact of cheating stop.e-mail us at ecbaco@ecb.co.uk 13 contact us on 0121 446 2710