Accidental Beamers (part 2)

[missingleg]

A while ago I sought advice over how to deal with a bowler who bowls the accidental beamer. Most were agreed that the letter of the law has to be implemented in cases of batsmen's safety. It seems officious, but I was of the opinion that it's our duty to give warnings, regardless of the standard of cricket.

However, I spoke to 2 experienced and successful umpires about this, and they said that law 43 needs to be implemented at times.

Please tell me what you'd do in these circumstances - I need as much advice as I can get! Would you give a warning, a second warning, and then take the bowler off for these (they're all accidental), or would you just no-ball or even wide in some cases to avoid giving a warning:


1) Very slow bowler bowls at the batsman's head. He can't bowl and the standard of cricket is awful. He gets smacked for 6.

2) Same bowler bowls a ball 5 yards over the batsman's head and runs away for 5 extras. Batsman and bowler have a chuckle.

3) Fast bowler bowls 3 yards outside off, at just over waist height and the ball is caught on the full at slip.


You SHOULD give a warning for each of these. But, would you?

I ask because I had to deal with these last season, and sometimes I wasn't popular for giving warnings (on one occasion taking the bowler off). Once I let one go but felt bad for being inconsistent with myself. I hate giving warnings and I feel like I'm ruining the match. BUT, what happens if you don't warn the bowler and the 4th ball kills the batsman or puts him in hospital? Can you say, 'I was just using a bit of Law 43'?

How would you feel if a bowler bowled 3 balls at head-height 3 yards down the leg-side, you didn't warn him for any, or only for 1 or 2, and then he hits the batsman in the neck - the letter of the law says he shouldn't have bowled that 4th ball.

The umpires I spoke to said something along the lines of 'if it wasn't directed at or near (again ambiguous) the batsman, don't give a warning.' Rarely give warnings to slow bowlers.

HELP ME PLEASE!

[swerveman]

In cases 1 and 2, given that the game is very low quality, I would probably just have a chuckle, along with the players. In a League game, I would give a warning, because they ought to know better.

In case 3, I would give a warning, because the next badly-directed ball could do some real damage. Three seasons ago, I had a fast bowler who did just that, and I awarded a Wide. Not long after, he nearly hit someone, and I felt it was my fault.

[tippexii]

I'd agree in principle that you can feel a lot more comfortable about applying Law 43 in low-standard, friendly games than you can in Leagues or other competitions. Still up to you to judge the individual circumstances though.

In a friendly, if you think there's a genuine danger to the batsman, rather than start dishing out warnings, it might be better having a quiet word with the fielding captain and ask him to think about taking the bowler off before someone gets hurt.

[wisden17]

I'd give warnings in all cases. The argument that it was a "friendly" doesn't stand up in court, if there is an injury when the bowler shouldn't still be bowling it's still an injury, and that guy could still be needing to sue to claim money for time off work (or worse!).

Umpiring isn't a popularity contest, and whilst there are occasions for Law 43 to be used I would NEVER use it in relation to beamers.

[missingleg]

Thanks for your advice and suggestions gentlemen, but this is just the kind of inconsistency of opinion that worries me for the start of the new season.

Either a) I take wisdon's approach and give warnings to ANY beamer, even if it's a spinner in the wet and even if it's a mile down the leg side. I will be satified I've done my job to protect the batsman and can't be sued if an injury occurs (however unlikely it still might) but I'll be one of the most unpopular, disrespected (I am still disliked by one captain for taking a spinner off) umpires in the league and won't progress easily.

or b) I fragment/interperet the laws and become selective over when to warn. I'm still not convinced law 43 should be used for issues of safety. I will get on with the players who won't see me as officious and overbearing and everyone will enjoy their afternoon. However, I will always be worried that a bowler who should be off might, just might, injure a batsman.


I can bet that whoever I stand with next year he will have a different opinion from mine (if I ever form one)! I suppose it boils down to individual character.

[wisden17]

I'd take issue with "most unpopular, disrespected . . . umpires in the league and won't progress easily"; indeed I positively disagree. If you're not comfortable warning bowlers for this in friendlys then try and do fewer friendly games and more league ones (quite what the distinction is I don't know; I always umpire the same in both).

I mean I have taken a young (and bad!) bowler off in a friendly game, after he's bowled 3 beamers, captain wasn't happy at the time; but after the match I had a word with him, and made it quite clear that I'm the one that would be liable if anyone had got injured etc.

It reminds me a lot of the discussion about when teamsheets came in as being mandatory. It seemed to take a few years for most umpires to accept this, and I'd say there are very few these days (well ones I know at least) who'd umpire a game (even a friendly!) without there having been a teamsheet done and signed etc. Perhaps if we have similar court cases to those they've had in football or rubgy matches, where referees have been sued, people might think not be so ready to advocate using Law 43 in these situations.

[missingleg]

One of the umpires I spoke to won the 'new umpire of the year award' for our league last year, and the above statement comes from him. His philosophy is to 'let the players get on with the game' wherever possible. One of the most important things about umpiring is to get on with the players, so I'm told. Therefore use common sense to decide if the delivery is potentially dangerous and give wides if it misses the batsman. I'm not sure about that...

Interestingly, I stood with him once; it was an under 15 match and there must have been nearly 20 beamers in the game. If we had given warnings, 5 bowlers would have had to have come off - what a report that would have been!

One further problem - whenever I see a beamer from the striker's end I always ask my partner 'did you warn him?' If he says no then it's difficult for me to enforce the law rigidly because it shows we're not working as a team.

I wish warnings could be handed out at the umpire's discretion like with bouncers. I want to be the very best umpire I can be, but there's so many different viewpoints with this law that it's hard to be consistent.

[jaybee]

Feb 10, 2009 23:51:25 GMT wisden17 said:

I'd give warnings in all cases. The argument that it was a "friendly" doesn't stand up in court, if there is an injury when the bowler shouldn't still be bowling it's still an injury, and that guy could still be needing to sue to claim money for time off work (or worse!).
Umpiring isn't a popularity contest, and whilst there are occasions for Law 43 to be used I would NEVER use it in relation to beamers.

I'm with Wisden17 on this. Last season there were two instances of serious injury that I've seen reported - and there could have been more. An email warning came down from ECB via our County Development Officer.
If somebody is so inaccurate that even he (or she) doesn't know where the ball is going to go there's no reason to suppose that none of the later deliveries will go at the head or throat - both potentially life-threatening.
Indeed you could argue that the skipper might also be culpable if the bowler is kept on.
It doesn't matter whether it's a 'social' game - in days of yore we always reckoned that the rate of injury seemed greater in a beer match than the 'real thing'.

Feb 10, 2009 15:08:41 GMT missingleg said:

...
However, I spoke to 2 experienced and successful umpires about this, and they said that law 43 needs to be implemented at times.

Please tell me what you'd do in these circumstances ...
1) Very slow bowler bowls at the batsman's head. He can't bowl and the standard of cricket is awful. He gets smacked for 6.

2) Same bowler bowls a ball 5 yards over the batsman's head and runs away for 5 extras. Batsman and bowler have a chuckle.

3) Fast bowler bowls 3 yards outside off, at just over waist height and the ball is caught on the full at slip.

You SHOULD give a warning for each of these. But, would you?
....

• How "experienced and successful" were these umpires and how aware are they of how the law (both the general law and the Laws of Cricket) and the attitude to the duty of care have changed in recent years?
  
• (1) What would the answer be if he hit it, got an edge and the ball went with full force into his eye?
  
• (2) Much harder to justify BUT doesn't it suggest that later deliveries could be anywhere? You can always preface your warning with an apologetic explanation.
• (3) Same comment though as he's fast there's more danger of injury with a later delivery.

Finally do make sure that you've got insurance cover - even if you do warn conscientiously!

[missingleg]

Thanks jaybee your advice is appreciated.

In response to your question, the gentlemen I talked to officiate in the ECB Derbyshire Premier League. Since I'll umpire in Divisions 2, 3 and 4 until I gain more experience and get better marks from captains, I look up to them as mentors. One has umpired since he was 28 and is in his 40s or 50s, the other has just started out but played for nearly 40 years.

They're aware of the law and why it's there, but I get the impression with at least one that he's built a good reputation and become successful because, in his words, he 'lets the players get on with the game, which is good umpiring'. Also, you should adapt the match standard and situation.

This is what I've inferred so far:

- To be a good and safety-conscious umpire you must follow the beamer law to the letter.
BUT - to be a well-respected and successful umpire you must show degrees of leniency.

Do you think it would be prudent to discuss this law with the captains before a match, as many, especially in low grade cricket, don't really understand it and what it's there for? I suppose then the captains would ask to dispense with the law, or be lenient with it!

Also, in (3) you say 'though as he's fast there's more danger of injury with a later delivery' - does this mean it's more justifiable, and because slow bowlers have 'never' caused injury that they don't need warnings as regularly?

[TrueDub]

I've been following this discussion with interest. I can see both sides of missingleg's dilemma, and there's good reasons for following either approach.

The way I would approach it would be to not mention it to the captains beforehand - after all, it's a Law and you shouldn't need to tell the captains you'll be enforcing the laws. When a beamer is bowled, I'd warn the player, and inform the captain, as required adding something along the lines of "if he bowls two more, he'll have to come off". Captains will get the message, especially if the second one is followed up with something like "one more in the match and he can't bowl again".

The only area I'd think about is the really mis-directed beamer. If it's going to hit third slip, or square leg, I might call wides and say to the bowler that he's treading on thin ice, but only if the delivery is an obvious slip or other error. If that's realistically how he bowls, I'd warn him, and his captain, every time.

Last season I had to remove a young bowler in a Cup Final. He bowled 8 overs from my end, and was warned twice in that space of time. When he came back on, I warned him, and his captain, that the warnings were still in force and he was on his last chance. His third ball was clearly over waist height. When I (apologetically) took him off, his captain's reaction was "you f**king eejit, the umpire warned you often enough!". The skipper was less philosophical when I informed him that the final 3 balls counted as an over for the bowler who took over!

[missingleg]

Presumably you have an idea of how misdirected a beamer needs to be before you call it 'wide' instead of a no-ball then? Eg. if the batsman can't hit it and you call a wide normally, or if it passes, say, a yard away from him? Would you then call a wide for a beamer 5 yards over head height? Because if you call that ball a no-ball (as technically you should) and then don't warn the bowler, you're liable for a possible injury?

This is all starting to sound a little silly I know but if you don't warn every single beamer, even if it's a slow bowler who bowls straight to fine leg (!) then you must have your own idea of proximity to the batsman before it's a warning.


Here are 2 examples of very different beamers, one fast and lethal, one slow and innocuous:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ4tVV94ePc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ysOWh6Jhk

[johnfgolding]

In my book this is very simple.
I agree with Wisden and do exactly that no matter what standard of game.

All you have do think about is someone being injured on the fourth beamer and you facing a claim for professional negligence.
I always say to the players if they accuse me of being officious (as they do) - "Would your next of kin or legal advisors take the same view"

As far as my collegue is concerned I would discuss that with him before the match.

Jaybee advises well - check your insurance.

I had an incident last season, where I had warned a young bowler twice. I talked to the captain to ask if he could bowl slow or change ends. Just remember that he could have been unsettled then a change of end may work. The captain actually took the bowler off.
At the end of the match as I was leaving the ground BOTH captains & vice captains came up to me and said well done.

So in short imagine the fourth beamer, has just happened (you did not warn on one or any of the others (too wide, too high etc), the batsman (or first slip in your scenerio) is hit on the head and badley injured. You then get the legal letter!
Thats all you need to think about.

[missingleg]

Thanks John and everyone for your opinions. I'll raise these issues with all the leaders at our next course meeting on Monday.

I still have difficulty with the law with regard to slow bowlers where I can't envisage any potential injury but I accept that that potential, however unlikely, exists.

[johnfgolding]

Pleasure,

The law is clear, whether you (any of us) agree with it or not.

Although not the same, what happens if you get caught exceeding the speed limit on the motorway by a camera and you are the only car on the road. You might think it safe to exceed the speed limit, but the fine still has to be paid, the points deducted etc.

The law is there to protect us.

[Acumen]

With a slow bowler it is very common for the striker to misjudge the speed and he could easily mis-hit a beamer and pull it on to his face.

I will always issue a formal warning but, if appropriate, will do so in a sympathetic manner. I would explain to the casual slow bowler that I fully understood that he had no intention of offending but that he did need to exercise better control to avoid endangering the striker.