Law Queries
We ask Mark Williams , MCC ’ s Laws of Cricket Advisor and ECB ACO Member , for his interpretation of topical incidents experienced by our members , or those that occur across the world of cricket .
Cliff Loverock , umpire and Level 2 tutor , emailed us copying the following paragraph from espncricinfo . com :
An ECB spokesman confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that , if a batsman struck the ball and it deflected off the shield and was subsequently caught , the batsman would be given out , in contrast to the situation for fielders wearing protective headgear . If the ball strikes the helmet before looping to a fielder , dead ball is called .
Surely this has to be wrong on two counts :
1 . It is contrary to the Laws of the game given that a catch cannot be made from a fielder ’ s protection aid ( helmet ). Why is an umpire ’ s protection aid different ?
2 . I cannot find anywhere in the Laws [ Law 23.4 ] that indicates ‘ dead ball ’ is called after striking a fielder ’ s helmet . I have always understood that the ball was still live and further action ( ie a run out ) could take place . Has this now been altered or have I misunderstood the Laws ?
The reason I looked on this website was that I was led there after asking the question ‘ Could a batsman be caught off an umpire ’ s shield ?’ My query was prompted following a question on this topic raised in our recent umpire ’ s meeting . I was expecting the answer to be ‘ no ’. How can I explain this inconsistency to our members ?
Mark Williams Replies : Law 32.3 ( d ) A fair catch states :
A catch shall be considered to be fair if ( d ) a fielder catches the ball after it has touched an umpire , another fielder or the other batsman . However , it is not a fair catch if at any time after having been struck by the bat and before the catch is completed , the ball has touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder .
Law 39.2 ( b ) Stumped states :
If the ball touches a protective helmet worn by the wicketkeeper , the ball is still in play but the striker shall not be out stumped . He will , however , be liable to be run out in these circumstances if there is subsequent contact between the ball and any fielder .
Law 38 . 2 ( iii ) Batsman not run out states :
( iii ) the ball , having been played by the striker , or having come off his person , directly strikes a protective helmet worn by a fielder and , without any other contact with him or any contact with any other fielder , rebounds directly on to the wicket . However , the ball remains in play and either batsman may be run out in the circumstances of 1 . above ( the wicket is fairly put down by the action of a fielder ) if a wicket is subsequently put down .
An umpire ’ s person and any equipment that he is wearing ( including any helmet ) is effectively equivalent to the non-striker ’ s equipment or person . The ball remains live after contact with him or his equipment , as it is when it hits the non-striker , and may be subsequently caught by a fielder to dismiss the striker , or be subsequently used to run out a batsman . There is no inconsistency here .
The ball is certainly not dead just because it has hit a fielder ’ s worn helmet . The striker cannot be caught if this has happened ( nor stumped if it is the wicketkeeper ’ s helmet ), but it is possible for either batsman to be subsequently run out provided that there has been additional contact between a fielder and the ball , either before or after the ball strikes the helmet ( in the case of the wicketkeeper ’ s helmet , the additional contact needs to be after the ball has hit the helmet ).
Please note : As pointed out in a previous issue , Tom Smith ’ s page 200 , section 4 , first paragraph , second sentence is incorrect in including an umpire or the non-striker .
That is the current Law , but there is a proposal , currently under consideration , now that helmets are routinely worn ( compulsorily in the professional and junior games ), that a fielder ’ s worn helmet should become a normal part of his person , and that catches and stumpings should be allowed if the ball strikes such a helmet . Discussion continues and a decision on this has not yet been made .
Mark provided the following further incidents that occurred recently and will interest readers :
1 . Here is another interesting incident which occurred in a recent Indian Premier League ( IPL ) match :
The striker came down the pitch to an off-spinner and the ball ( which was a fair delivery ) passed between bat and striker ’ s person without touching anything ; it subsequently hit the wicketkeeper on the knee , bounced up and struck his helmet , fell into his gloves and he fairly put the wicket down with the striker out of his ground . There was an appeal . How would you answer the appeal if you were the striker ’ s end umpire in the following three scenarios ?
( i ) As described above , and how would the striker be dismissed ?
( ii ) If the ball had bounced directly from helmet to the stumps without any contact with another fielder .
( iii ) As described above , but the delivery was a no ball .
8 email us at ecb . aco @ ecb . co . uk contact us on 0121 446 2710