|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 1, 2008 7:51:32 GMT
Yesterday the cut strip was really quite damp but played well. Pre match both my colleague and I agreed that we would be very strict about any about any encroachment by ANYONE on the protected area. We went to the dressing room and told the teams. The information was well received and believe it or not adhered to. A very good match (rule 43). I know what the law says but in village cricket one does try to help the players with a bit of advice. ie You were in danger of encroaching usually sorts the problem out, prior to a warning.
At a recent match, whilst at the strikers end, there was a beamer, my colleague rightly called and signalled no ball, he also looked to me for confirmation about the height of the ball. During the change over at the end of the ball I enquired as to wether he issued a caution. NO he said as he felt the ball is playable. I simply mentioned I personally would have issued mentioned I would have issued a caution as the law prescribes. This is a safety issue. Interesting the fielding captain mentioned it to me after the match and was suprised, he was expecting the caution.
To be fair my colleague has just started out and not yet been on a training course. Lets hope the future system allows this to happen. I have read what has been written on this forum about the future of training. This is but one example.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 1, 2008 17:14:12 GMT
This is something I have learnt very recently too. I hate to be an unpopular umpire, especially with spinners who bowl beamers that I don't consider dangerous, but The Law's The Law.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 1, 2008 17:33:08 GMT
This is something I have learnt very recently too. I hate to be an unpopular umpire, especially with spinners who bowl beamers that I don't consider dangerous, but The Law's The Law. That is what I thought in my first season, but soon learn't the law is there for a reason. I think the players respect you for it. I know my marks improved as soon as I had worked that out.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jun 2, 2008 7:39:02 GMT
This is something I have learnt very recently too. I hate to be an unpopular umpire, especially with spinners who bowl beamers that I don't consider dangerous, but The Law's The Law. Don't forget that for a slow spinner to be penalised for bowling a beamer the ball has to be above shoulder height. It's only quick bowlers who are penalised for bowling beamers above waist height. And don't worry about becoming unpopular - it simply won't happen. I have no truck at all with any form of unfairness and on Saturday we submitted two disciplinaries in one game - both during the first innings. During the game there was a little muttering admittedly but there was no further problem during the game and at the end everyone shook our hand and commented that we "played well", umpired well, or similar phrases. I will of course "manage" minor infringements such as running onto the edge of a dry protected area but anything further and the laws are enforced without question. I know for a fact that I am getting a reputation as "The Enforcer" which to me only means that in the long run I will get fewer problems.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 2, 2008 11:30:34 GMT
This is something I have learnt very recently too. I hate to be an unpopular umpire, especially with spinners who bowl beamers that I don't consider dangerous, but The Law's The Law. And don't worry about becoming unpopular - it simply won't happen. I will of course "manage" minor infringements such as running onto the edge of a dry protected area but anything further and the laws are enforced without question. I know for a fact that I am getting a reputation as "The Enforcer" which to me only means that in the long run I will get fewer problems. And you will get better games
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 2, 2008 14:42:51 GMT
This is something I have learnt very recently too. I hate to be an unpopular umpire, especially with spinners who bowl beamers that I don't consider dangerous, but The Law's The Law. Don't forget that for a slow spinner to be penalised for bowling a beamer the ball has to be above shoulder height. It's only quick bowlers who are penalised for bowling beamers above waist height. In fact you'll find that it's not only quick bowlers who get penalised above waist height, the law says other than slow if memory serves me right, which doesn't limit it to just the quicks.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jun 2, 2008 20:22:29 GMT
Don't forget that for a slow spinner to be penalised for bowling a beamer the ball has to be above shoulder height. It's only quick bowlers who are penalised for bowling beamers above waist height. In fact you'll find that it's not only quick bowlers who get penalised above waist height, the law says other than slow if memory serves me right, which doesn't limit it to just the quicks. Yes, I did say earlier that a slow spinner (or obviously any slow bowler) has to bowl above shoulder height. I should have then said "quicker" bowlers, not "quick".
|
|
|
Post by TrueDub on Jun 3, 2008 8:23:42 GMT
In fact you'll find that it's not only quick bowlers who get penalised above waist height, the law says other than slow if memory serves me right, which doesn't limit it to just the quicks. Yes, I did say earlier that a slow spinner (or obviously any slow bowler) has to bowl above shoulder height. I should have then said "quicker" bowlers, not "quick". To be completely pedantic, it's actually the pace of the delivery that's important, not the bowler. So a slow ball from a medium-pacer might give a different interpretation, as would a faster ball from a slow bowler. On the subject of informal warnings, I'm all in favour. It makes your life easier (and is better man-management) to let a bowler know quietly that he's encroaching or getting close to a no-ball. It makes it easier to then execute the formal process if required - and 99% of the time it's not. The warnings for beamers are in the Laws, and we've no leeway in enforcing them. I had to warn a 13-year-old in a youths match, and he nearly cried as he thought he was in real trouble. I had to preface the warning with "I know you didn't do it deliberately, and that it's your last over, but I have to give you a warning..."
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 3, 2008 14:11:19 GMT
On the subject of informal warnings, I'm all in favour. It makes your life easier (and is better man-management) to let a bowler know quietly that he's encroaching or getting close to a no-ball. It makes it easier to then execute the formal process if required - and 99% of the time it's not. The warnings for beamers are in the Laws, and we've no leeway in enforcing them. I had to warn a 13-year-old in a youths match, and he nearly cried as he thought he was in real trouble. I had to preface the warning with "I know you didn't do it deliberately, and that it's your last over, but I have to give you a warning..." A lot depends on how you issue the warning / caution. It is usually enough to simply say "thats your first" to the bowler, they usually understand. A similar remark to his captain, the batsman & your collegue will also do. I did once have a captain retort "he didn't mean to do it ump". My response was very simple "if he did he would not be bowling the next ball" sorted that out.
|
|
peterg
Regular Contributor
Posts: 11
|
Post by peterg on Jun 11, 2008 8:35:07 GMT
Two points arise for me. First, some league regulations include slow balls above waist height as no balls - a reminder to mug up on league regulations before a game. Second, I had a similar experience to other posters in delivering a warning to a young bowler. I was as polite and gentle as could be, and explained I had to deliver the warning as that was the law. Later several team members (including his father) remonstrated with me for treating a young player that way. I had to explain that (a) that was the law and (b) it was an important law in terms of players' safety. This was a league match (in Cornwall) by the way and I was surprised that so many players did not know or understand this law.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 11, 2008 11:47:13 GMT
I had a similar experience to other posters in delivering a warning to a young bowler. I was as polite and gentle as could be, and explained I had to deliver the warning as that was the law. Later several team members (including his father) remonstrated with me for treating a young player that way. I had to explain that (a) that was the law and (b) it was an important law in terms of players' safety. This was a league match (in Cornwall) by the way and I was surprised that so many players did not know or understand this law. This is so often the case, unfortunately. This weekend I had a league match where an U18 came on to bowl and with the first ball, instead of looking for line & length, he tried to blast the batsman out. The result was the ball passed the batsman over waist height (it was fairly quick), so no ball & first warning. The fielding captain whinged a bit, out of frustration. The young bowler tried to compensate with the next two balls. The first being so short that it bounced more than twice – No ball, The second was a wide. The bowler was obviously upset, so calming words were required. Fourth ball went past the batsman at almost shoulder height – No ball, second & final warning. This time the skipper was more vocal saying that I was being a bit officious. He understood that I had no choice. The batsmen both said they were not worried, however, it was explained that their next of kin would not be so understanding if the very worst happened. However, with heart in my mouth we then managed to get six legal deliveries to complete the over. The second over saw him take a wicket – now was that good news or not. The fifth ball of the third over was very marginal, I looked at my colleagues who was obviously debating with himself on the height of the ball & how far the batsman was down the wicket. We felt that discretion was called for then talked to the bowler and his skipper. The bowler was taken off at the end of the over to come on and bowl from the other end towards the end of the innings without a problem, apart from the batsman who saw his middle stump removed. Result is that both captains rated our actions highly & thanked us for how we dealt with the situation. It is important to work with and be seen to work with your colleague.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 11, 2008 14:46:09 GMT
The fifth ball of the third over was very marginal, I looked at my colleagues who was obviously debating with himself on the height of the ball & how far the batsman was down the wicket. We felt that discretion was called for then talked to the bowler and his skipper. The bowler was taken off at the end of the over to come on and bowl from the other end towards the end of the innings without a problem, apart from the batsman who saw his middle stump removed. Result is that both captains rated our actions highly & thanked us for how we dealt with the situation. It is important to work with and be seen to work with your colleague. I wonder if your colleague realised that it doesn't matter how far down the pitch the batsman is, since (from memory) the law refers to the height of the ball, with the batsman stood upright at the crease. Makes it harder to judge at what height the ball would have passed him since he is not stood there wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 11, 2008 17:55:10 GMT
I wonder if your colleague realised that it doesn't matter how far down the pitch the batsman is, since (from memory) the law refers to the height of the ball, with the batsman stood upright at the crease. Makes it harder to judge at what height the ball would have passed him since he is not stood there wouldn't it? Yes he did realise that, and that is why he was having difficulty deciding.
|
|