Laws of Cricket

Cricket World Cup 2019: Week 1, update #2—Tamper tantrums

~ Liam Cromar ~ Leave a comment

The second of an informal weekly (p)review of the 2019 Cricket World Cup – or, as I like to call it, the #Champ10nsTrophy.

Truth be told, #CWC19 needed the England vs Pakistan result. After a couple of one-sided shellackings (expect me to return to that at a future date as part of yet another criticism of the 10-team format) a high-scoring game that went down to the wire and, most importantly, saw the favourites finish in second place, was needed to kickstart the competition.

England shouldn’t worry too much. Neither of the previous two hosts to win the World Cup managed a clean sweep: India lost to South Africa in 2011, and Australia lost to New Zealand in 2015. Neither had too much trouble in lifting the trophy a few matches later.

What it didn’t need was a ball-tampering controversy. Maybe “ball-tampering” and “controversy” are too strong a pair of terms: a couple of English batsmen were noticeably reticent – albeit also noticeably exercised – when given the opportunity to comment on the subject, thereby damping down the flames.

At Trent Bridge the umpires were quick to jump on the signs of proto-tampering and nip them in the bud. To be specific, both sides were warned against throwing the ball in on more than one bounce to the keeper, a well-worn tactic (geddit?) for roughing up one side. Whether they were consistent or not, or whether both teams complied with the direction equally, is immaterial to this discussion.

It strikes me as excessive to prevent teams from engaging in legitimate activity that has an incidental and beneficial side effect. The key point is that throwing the ball in on the bounce is justifiable for non-tampering reasons: the flatter trajectory is faster. Perhaps two or three bounces – which is what the umpires were taking exception to – is pushing it; is there a valid reason, other than an attempt to change the condition of the ball, for such throwing? Could one not argue that it saves time and reduces the sting on the bowler’s receiving hands?

Obviously this all seems to be overlooked when a run out is on the cards: I’ve yet to hear of umpires pulling up fielders who’ve effected outfield dismissals via a bounced throw. Yet even when not aiming for a run out, the the fielding side has a right, nay, a responsibility to save time where possible – as Bumble would say, to get on with the game. (There’s another #CWC19 disappointment: why’s Bumble missing from the commentary box?)

That’s not to say the umpires acted incorrectly. Law 41.3.2, the Law that prohibits ball-tampering, reveals a double standard: one for batsmen and one for everyone else.

41.3.2 It is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball.
Except in carrying out his/her normal duties, a batsman is not allowed to wilfully damage the ball. […]

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/unfair-play

How, pray, can one interact with the ball in any way that does not change its condition? Bowling anything other than full tosses will cause it to land and rough up. Catching it will transfer sweat or other substances onto its surface. Batsmen, however, are given special dispensation to wilfully damage the ball in carrying out their normal duties. Why are bowlers and fielders not similarly allowed to effect damage in the course of their normal duties?

Wasn’t the game so much more interesting when Hassan Ali found a bit of inswing? In fact, forget England losing: so far, the biggest surprise of the World Cup has been the lesser spotted Kookaburra swing. Even up the playing field, I say, and let bowlers damage the ball incidentally, if not accidentally.

Square leg scorer

~ Liam Cromar ~ Leave a comment

3.1 Appointment of scorers

Two scorers shall be appointed to record all runs scored, all wickets taken and, where appropriate, number of overs bowled.

3.2 Correctness of scores

The scorers shall frequently check to ensure that their records agree.  They shall agree with the umpires, at least at every interval, other than drinks intervals, and at the conclusion of the match, the runs scored, the wickets that have fallen and, where appropriate, the number of overs bowled.  See Law 2.15 (Correctness of scores).

[…]


Marylebone Cricket Club, 2017, Law 3 – The Scorers

Law 3 is not a controversial Law. It makes sense. Two scorers are better than one: they can check with each other, watch out for each other, and even cover for each other (in extremis).

Law 3 is also, probably, the most flouted law in the book, particularly in the recreational game. How often do captains agree to “just copy the book” at the end of the game and get away with one scorer, drawn from whoever isn’t batting at the time? Chances are that scorer hasn’t had official training, either. It’s not in the least surprising that scoring errors plague lower (and sometimes the not such lower) levels of cricket.

One of the more unexpected discoveries from my excursion to play cricket in Quebec (more on that another time) was the system that a social cricket club had developed to address the frequent scoring discrepancies that threatened to derail games. They had, in effect, re-invented linear scoring. The umpire was given a clipboard and blank bowling record. Provided he/she filled it in, the teams would then have two records – one by the umpire, one by the book scorer, and errors could be detected. Most importantly, the final score could be agreed without undue wrangling.

It’s such a simple idea that it must already be in use elsewhere. Nevertheless, I liked this idea so much that I’ve adapted the core idea for use in my club, Haymakers CC, during its social fixtures. As a strategy in casual cricket, it has a lot going for it. Appoint one bowler’s end umpire (i.e. somebody who knows the LBW law), and one striker’s end umpire. Give the latter the job of maintaining this A6 size bowling record. The advantages are myriad:

  • It allows every over, and indeed the entire innings, more or less, to be reconstructed.
  • It gives the fielding side access to the score on the field when the scoreboard inevitably falls behind.
  • It makes the role of the striker’s end umpire a bit more interesting.
  • It means the striker’s end umpire can’t avoid keeping count of the number of balls in the over.
  • It starts to introduce players who fulfill this role to the scoring symbols.
  • It finally satisfies Law 3.1 (two scorers are thereby appointed) and Law 3.2 (runs, wickets and overs are recorded and can be meaningfully cross-checked).
  • It relieves the bowler’s end umpire from keeping score (some do, some don’t).

The downside is, of course, that it does make the job of striker’s end umpire more involved. Yet it will be worth it for the time and aggravation it’ll save down the line. Whole overs won’t go missing (not that that’s ever happened – ahem).

Here is version 1 of my Square Leg Scoring record. It includes:

  • A row for each over (maximum of 30)
  • A box for each delivery
  • A space to record an identifier for the bowler (whether name, number, initials, hairstyle, or something else)
  • Columns for the over total and the running total
  • Two features for those new to the job:
    • A quick reference guide to scoring symbols
    • A couple of example overs

The underlying format is an Excel spreadsheet. Each page covers 30 overs. You can print it at A4 if you wish, but my strategy is to print 4 to the page, as shown in the PDF version. This can then be folded twice to leave an A6 size sheet. Add pencil and backing board (time to source an A6 clipboard), and your Square Leg Scrumpire / Striker’s End Umporer is ready to sally forth and tally.

strikers_end_umpire_bowling_recordDownload
umpire_bowling_record_a4Download

I intend to hone this in light of user feedback, and to that end I’d be interested to hear from anyone who uses this, or a similar system, as to how it might be improved.

Special thanks to Angus Bell of the Pirates of the St Lawrence CC for the inspiration, and the welcome to cricket in Montreal.

Mankad Day

~ Liam Cromar ~ 1 Comment

It was just a matter of time. Yet it was entirely fitting that the latest Mankading Incident should erupt on Groundhog Day 2016. The date notwithstanding, it was, of course, just like the one in 2014. And the one in 2012. And the one in [that’s enough Mankad examples—Ed.].

Except it wasn’t. For without warnings from the bowler, nor blatant attempts by the batsman to steal ground, you could view this as a purer example. To use a programming term, this was an boundary condition: one in which the parameters are placed close to their perimeter, so as to test the system. The fact that the the batsman was apparently not attempting to gain ground, and the bowler was apparently always intending to run him out, was a twist on the usual situation. The opportunity to re-evaluate one’s own attitude under different conditions makes this latest furore almost welcome, even though on first glance, it seems like covering old ground.

Chris Smith’s careful handling of the matter is well worth consideration, going some way towards teasing out why many will have felt uncomfortable about the situation, and yet explaining why he, ultimately, supports such action.

For me, it’s been an opportunity to revisit my thoughts on the subject from 2012. On the whole, my view has changed little: I maintained then, and still do, that to criticise a bowler for effecting a fair dismissal, explicitly permitted (and regulated) in the Laws, on the basis of the Spirit of the Game, is an abuse of that concept, and is counter-productive.

At the same time, the passage of three years has resulted a slight shift in my opinion of what action should be taken. David Hopps, most notably, is leading the call for a mandatory warning to be issued to the batsman.

The idealist in me rejects this as an unnecessary alteration to Laws that are already ultra-clear. The pragmatist in me suggests this may be a sensible compromise that may help to bridge the divide in opinion.

The Laws, of course, are unambiguous. The MCC Laws of Cricket give Mankading a clean bill of health, specifically addressing it in Law 42.15. The difficulty arises, at least in part, due to the fact that knowledge of the Laws cannot be relied on, even amongst cricket lovers. Furthermore, the idea of warning the batsman first is so thoroughly ingrained in the perception of so many cricketers that it has to be given due consideration, and cannot merely be dismissed as irrelevant sentimentality.

For many, such behaviour isn’t what they wish to see in cricket. Their difficulty is that cricket’s Laws don’t outlaw it. Others believe, and I’m in this category, that if something’s in the Laws, there can be no quarrel with its enforcement.

If, though, the Laws were to change, providing support for the first group, then the second group, by virtue of the fact they they’ll stick rigidly to what the Laws prescribe (present tense), should, in theory, find themselves pulling in the same direction as the first group.

For that reason I find myself tending towards what might be termed the Hopps Solution. While my idealist side inwardly screams that it simply isn’t necessary, my pragmatic side says that it may be of some benefit. Enshrining a warning in the Laws would be unlikely to remove all the controversy—note that warning Buttler did not save Mathews from the ire of many (including Cook)—but as a practical first step, it has some merit.

Implementation would require careful consideration. Most obviously, there is the question of what would constitute a warning. Would a feinted Mankad count? Would a successful Mankad have to be effected, but without any appeal made? Or would a verbal reminder to the batsman that a Mankad was lurking suffice? These are not insoluble questions, though.

As an alternative to the Hopps Solution, MCC could change Law 42.15 to explicitly flag up that no warning shall be expected (which would run counter to their 2014 recommendation to provide a warning), or re-write the Preamble (which attempts to explain the Spirit of Cricket) to underline the fact that Mankading is not a contravention of the Spirit.

Regardless of whether any action is taken or none, Mankading is not going away, and neither will the debates. Whether you support change or not may well depend on your appetite for another Groundhog Day.