Your Letters
Ian Bagshaw , Hampshire ( two letters ) Scoring Runs
My Yorkshire-born father often said ‘ cricket ’ s a funny game ’, to which the stock response from his equally dour Yorkshire mates was ‘ but it ’ s not supposed to be ’. However , it is a game full of inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies .
While even the newest player to the game learns rapidly that matches are won by either runs or wickets , has anyone thought to question the logic behind the means of accumulating runs ?
For the sake of completeness in this letter , but without elaboration , I ’ ll state the various means of scoring runs available under the current laws :
1 . Off the bat 2 . Bowling extras comprising no balls and wide balls 3 . Fielding extras comprising byes , leg byes and penalties .
So what , I hear said , but I have always had a problem with one of these , namely the leg bye .
In all the other run-scoring situations either the striker has had a positive input with his bat or the fielding side has made an error ( no balls , wide balls , byes and penalties – in general ). With leg byes , however , the bowler has beaten the striker and yet the batting side can be awarded runs as a consequence of being beaten . Indeed , I seem to recollect a ‘ magic over ’ some time ago between England and Pakistan when , I think , that of Pakistan ’ s six runs , four were leg byes . Matches are often won by a small margin of runs and , if leg byes were taken out of the reckoning , some results would be reversed . I see no logic in the award of runs in leg bye situations .
While the Laws of the game are under constant scrutiny and change , I ’ d like to see leg byes removed .
Oh , and there ’ s another slightly frivolous reason ! I ’ m getting on a bit and 2016 could be my last season umpiring Premier League cricket . Despite much practice during March and April , I can be a bit wobbly on one leg early season when ( some ) scorers enjoy keeping one waiting before acknowledging the leg bye signal . Removal of leg byes from the reckoning would eliminate this problem .
Answered by Mark Williams , MCC :
The argument that leg byes should be removed as a way of scoring runs often comes up and you have articulated the reasons why well enough . Let us imagine a situation in which leg byes were abolished and the ball only hits the batsman ’ s person , so that no runs would be allowed .
The first problem is : when would the ball become dead ?
If it were once the ball strikes the batsman ’ s person having not previously struck the bat , then if the ball hit the bat subsequently , no catch or runs would be allowed , which is clearly undesirable .
If it were once the fielding side had had the opportunity of running out either batsman or stumping the striker before a run had been completed , or neither the fielding side nor batsmen at the wicket regard it as in play ( as in the current leg bye Law ), then the problem would be solved .
The second problem is : it would lead to defensive bowling , and all that the fielding side would have to do to prevent scoring would be to hit the striker on his person without there being any contact between the ball and the bat at any stage .
Potentially , this would lead to right-arm bowlers bowling round the wicket to right handers , and firing the ball in at leg-stump on a very full length . This would lead to unattractive cricket and would potentially ruin a close finish .
The third problem is a pragmatic one :
There would be pressure on the umpire to decide whether or not there had been a thin inside edge when the ball went on to cross the boundary for instance . At present the batting side scores four runs either way and it doesn ’ t matter if the umpire gets it wrong . In a close finish , however , this could be critical and the umpire would be forced into a potentially very difficult call .
It ’ s all very well to say that this could be decided by replay cameras in international cricket , but the change just wouldn ’ t work for recreational cricket . For the time being it ’ s very unlikely that leg byes will be abolished in Law , and so your wobbly leg will still need to be pressed into service !
Out , Run Out ?
I suppose it had to happen sooner or later since the ‘ run out ’ law was changed , in 2010 , with the additional qualification of the term ‘ batsman out of his ground ’ in Law 29 1 . ( b ). Luckily , at recreational level anyway , without the essential benefit of cameras , we will not have to worry too much about the change . However , in a game abounding with peculiarities , I would like an official explanation of the rationale behind what seems , to my way of thinking , an additional peculiarity resulting in a law without consistent logic .
I ’ m referring , of course , to the World Cup T20 group match , England versus Afghanistan , during which an Afghanistan wicket fell to a run out decision after much third umpire deliberation . The bat had clearly been grounded behind the popping crease when sliding in , subsequent to a full length dive , but had bounced marginally off the ground with no other part of the batsman ’ s person grounded when the wicket was broken , fairly . The decision of ‘ out ’ under the law as it stands was correct .
However , the law is also quite clear that if one or both feet had been grounded behind the popping crease before the wicket had been broken but , crucially , were both in the air at that vital moment , the decision would be ‘ not out ’.
email us at ecb . aco @ ecb . co . uk contact us on 0121 446 2710 21