ACO NEWSLETTER - Ecb - England and Wales Cricket Board

Your letters…Letters continued to flood in toECB ACO headquartersfollowing Edition 14. We aredelighted to publish thefollowing thoughts here. If youhave any views on any aspectof cricket or the Association,please emaileditor.aco@ecb.co.ukHugh Evans, Lancashire, wrote to us regardingthe Spirit of Cricket:All too often these days we are quick to reportindiscipline and player indiscretion whichsometimes gives a very negative feel to ourwonderful game. This is of course made easierwith the World Wide Web, Facebook, Twitterand the like.I would like to show a more positive sideto the game which gives rise to the fact thatthe Spirit of Cricket is very much alive andwell in the Liverpool Competition. The threeexamples I have outlined below involveSouthport and Birkdale CC.In the first incident, the batsman hit the ballhigh to the boundary where the ball wascaught by a fielder on the boundary edge. Allthought it was a fair catch and the batsmenprepared to leave the field but a quick shoutfrom the fielder indicated that he had stood onthe boundary line when taking the catch andthat it was a boundary six. In this instancehonesty and sportsmanship prevailed.In a match at Lytham, the Southport XIwere on the end of a drubbing from the eventualcompetition winners. Skipper Mulligan,who made good use of a swinging ball, endedthe day with eight wickets. Five of these wicketswere caught behind and what was veryspecial to me as the standing umpire was thatfour of his victims did not wait for the umpire’sdecision. The fifth only waited for confirmationfrom the wicket keeper and umpirethat the ball had carried. True sportsmanship,not by one batsman but five!The third incident occurred at Ormskirkwhere skipper Firth was operating with fieldersround the bat to left handed batsman Armstrong.The ball was played down onto thefoot, or so it appeared to both umpires, andwas caught by one of the close fielders. Theumpire, after consultation, duly raised the fingeronly for an immediate response from skipperand bowler of “I would like to withdrawthe appeal”. It appeared that there was somedoubt raised by the batsman as to a cleanbounce from the foot or possibly part foot/partground.I am sure that there have been other incidentsduring the summer which exemplifyhow many clubs in the Liverpool Competitionand probably other leagues play the game.Why do we only ask umpires to report incidentsof indiscipline and breaches of the Spiritof Cricket and ‘mark clubs down’ accordingly?Should we not report on the more positiveaspects of our game and reward clubswhere they show that they really do playwithin and value the Spirit of Cricket?Steve Barker, Durham, also mentioned theSpirit of Cricket:We have heard a lot recently from varioussporting bodies about the hope that the recentmagnificent Olympic Games and the spirit ofsportsmanship demonstrated would rub off onother sports and players.Whilst umpiring a recent match I wouldlike to recount how far in some cases we haveto travel.In the first innings two players were out,caught behind off big nicks however neitherchose to ‘walk’. I did my usual of giving themsufficient time before raising my finger. Whenthe opposition were batting there was a loudappeal for a caught behind which I answeredwith a not out. At this point both the bowlerand wicket keeper confronted the batsman anda few choice words were exchanged.After an instruction from me to get on withthe game the bowler marched back towardshis mark and among some other choice wordssaid loudly that the batsman was a cheat, forwhich the bowler received a caution.David Marks sent in this query regardingstrapping on a bowler’s hand:In the third test between England and the WestIndies during the summer, one of the West Indianbowlers looked to have strapping on hisbowling hand. I always thought that bowlerscould have nothing on their bowling hand(strapping, band aid, bandage etc.). As an umpirethis came up in a game that I was incharge of, resulting in a ‘but he was wearingit, so why can’t I’ conversation. I insisted thatit was removed or the player could not bowl.Can you please tell me what the laws ofcricket have to say about this?MCC Response: The most relevant Law forconsideration in this case is Law 41.1. Aplaster or bandage on the hand does needto be authorised by the umpires, whose permissionshould not be unreasonably withheld.Bowlers are treated the same asfielders, in this situation. The reality islikely to be that the strapping is there tostop an existing injury from being worsened.We’ve heard of families that all playcricket, but for Colin Muttitt’s family, fromOxfordshire, there is a slightly differenttwist:I am an umpire, working towards my level1A, and umpire the Cherwell League and Oxfordshirecolts fixtures up to U15’s.My wife, Sally, working towards her Level1A, is scorer for the Aston Rowant 1st team inthe Home Counties.My son, Adam, is playing for ARCC in theHome Counties as well as being captain of theU17 Oxfordshire county sideAnd my daughter, Gemma, who plays forChalbury women’s team, is also captain of theWomen’s Oxfordshire county side. So as yousee our weekends are full of cricket (weatherdepending!). We also have a little Norfolk terrier,Jarvie, who is the mascot for both teamstoo!David Allen, Kent, emailed us aboutSteven Finn and in particular the breakingof the bowlers’ end wicket in his deliverystride:It’s good to see a debate about the Steven Finnincident yet up until now it remains unresolvedas the response to an accidental breakingof the wicket by the bowler is still beingmet with a call of dead ball yet, bizarrely, noton the first occasion.The inadvertent error by Steve Davis hasdescended into farce as the current practice ofallowing the wicket to be broken without thecall of dead ball on a first, or even second occasionmight still disadvantage the batsmanwere he to be out from one of those deliveries.In most cases, as we have seen in the currenttournament, a call of dead ball usually disadvantagesthe batsman as his delightful shot forfour is nullified to maintain the illusion thatthe umpires are being consistent.It seems to be so difficult for the ICC to acknowledgean on-field clanger and draw a lineunder it so instead they mount an instant andill thought out defence. Subsequent attemptsto justify the decision as valid and proper haveonly muddled the issue.There are some very significant principlesinvolved in this issue which if considered independentlyand separately from the eventsmight lead to a resolution and sensible guidelinesfor the future.1. If a practice has occurred over a great dealof time that everyone in the game is familiarwith, then it is not the place of the onfieldumpire to set a new precedent in the‘heat of the action’. The on-field umpire isunder pressure, there is no time to fullyconsider the ramifications of a ‘left field’decision which, as happened in this case,has spawned the ludicrous situation wee-mail us at ecbaco@ecb.co.uk 24 contact us on 0121 446 2710