Will you consider appeal in this case ?

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

From my field experience:

Batsman was surely out under one of the Law. But there was no Appeal at all from fielding side. Fielding side Coach shouted from outside the boundary line and asked captain to appeal. Captain appealed then. Next delivery was still to come into play.

would you have considered appeal ?

[tippex2]

I don't see any reason in Law not to consider the appeal - there's been an appeal from the fielding side within the relevant time limit, so it has to be considered.

Under the Laws, other than reporting various bits of unfair play to the "Executive of the [relevant] side" there's no reference to coaches or any other support personnel, so in a situation like this, you'd have to treat them as any other spectator - essentially irrelevant to any umpiring decision.

[sillypoint]

Spot on tippex2. When contemplating scenarios like this it is often instructive to extrapolate to see what you answer would be. In this case, take out the coach—what if the captain was prompted by shouts from an unknown bystander? It really doesn't matter when you look at it like that. The only fact that matters is the appeal itself was within the Laws.

[gooders]

It's no different to a batsman being hit on the pads on the last ball of an over and there is no appeal, but as you are walking out to square leg, the bowler asks you politely "How was that, umpire?". You would still have to consider that appeal until the ball next became live.

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

There is best example to this scenario.

In one of the IPL match batsman was run out on 1st run but no appeal from RCB. There was a overthrow and batsmen ran second. As soon as ball settled into hands of WK broadcaster played replay on big screen showing batsman was not in while 1st run being taken and was run out. Virat Kohli saw that and immediately appealed to striker's end umpire (marais erasmus).

Here , umpire denied appeal from Kohali as he took external evidence/support for appeal.
I think Umpire did great job here beyond the law to avoid any possible controversy considering match management.
Situation would very controversial if he would have accepted appeal and would have given batsman out.
He managed whole thing in best possible way.

So my personal opinion is not to accept such late appeals which have based from external resources/support/evidences just to avoid any controversy. If you accept it all (which is within the laws), you may get into trouble by victim batsman/side.

[tippex2]

I don't know what special rules apply to the IPL, which has TV replays for run outs and other decisions. It's possible that they have a competition rule, which Erasmus was applying correctly.

I'd be very concerned about an umpire (any umpire) basing a decision on wishing to "avoid controversy" or because he might "get into trouble" with one or other side. Umpires are there to apply the Law (and competition Rules) without fear or favour; and not to worry about whether a decision will help them win a popularity contest. I'm sure in common with many umpires I've made plenty of decisions which I knew would be unpopular, and probably get me marked down on captains' reports, but which I thought were correct.

[sillypoint]

I'm afraid I disagree with Mayur's view on the IPL incident he quotes. In a match where video replays are in use to review decisions, how is it fair and reasonable for the umpire to give an incorrect decision on appeal just because the players saw a replay before appealing?

For most of us, of course, a situation like this is one where we would have to have seen the situation live—and it could easily happen that a run out occurs, more or less accidentally (say, the ball brushes the stumps and one bail falls), so that the fielders fail to realise it as they are focussed on the overthrow. If your attention is focussed on events at your end you will know that the batsman was out of his ground and are then in a position to answer the appeal if it comes later; if you were not focussed correctly then you will be unable to answer an appeal honestly. It is a good example because it raises the importance of maintaining correct focus of your attention throughout each period of play.

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

Percentage decision matters sometimes. Laws lay guidelines for umpires to follow. There are occasions when umpires need to think beyond the laws. Regarding IPL, there were no special regulation covering this scenario. It was mistake by video director to play the video on ground screen just when ball become dead. But Erasmus acted with his presence of mind and give strong message for rest of the IPL that such appeal which are based from external resources will not be considered.

Imagine there was a hit wicket, no body knew how the wicket was put down. Ball is dead now. Umpire puts the bail back. fielding side dint appeal at all but some one outside the boundary line shouted and asked captain to appeal.

I agree that law says appeal is still valid... but the way it is generated it will be harsh on batting side and i will raise this concern to the fielding captain and will try to explain him as Erasmus did and will not accept the appeal. This i will do more towards match management than laws.

This is all my personal opinion... Other umpires may have different

[gooders]

Having watched the test matches between England and Australia, where there were very limited choices for ICC 'Elite' umpires, I questioned more than once, the decisions of Erasmus, not only when he was one of the two standing umpires. There were quite a few gaffes when he was the tv replay umpire, and seemed to get the wrong decision after numerous replays. Not, IMHO, the most competent official.
Another small point would be disagreement with your second sentence in your last post Mayur, the laws do not lay guidelines, they are the laws of the game, which must be observed, and it is our job as umpires to see that they are observed. If we do not ensure that this is so, then we should not be umpiring at any level of the game.

That is my personal opinion, and one I hope I convey to all my students as they enter the umpires fraternity, and progress further.

[jaybee]

Jun 17, 2014 5:38:35 GMT Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh said:

Percentage decision matters sometimes. Laws lay guidelines for umpires to follow. There are occasions when umpires need to think beyond the laws. ...
I agree that law says appeal is still valid... but the way it is generated it will be harsh on batting side and i will raise this concern to the fielding captain and will try to explain him as Erasmus did and will not accept the appeal. This i will do more towards match management than laws.
This is all my personal opinion....

I disagree with most of this. We are there to apply the laws which are 'rules' to follow and not 'guidelines'.
Here we are dealing with two questions of fact:

• Was there a valid dismissal? The answer to this is 'Yes' (see original post)
• Was there a proper appeal from the fielding side before the ball becomes live again? Again the answer is 'Yes'

The only way this could conceivably be overturned is under Law 42 - Fair and Unfair Play - which does allow umpires to intervene. But there hasn't been 'play' and there was no unfair action by a player. The coach is just another bystander.
You could of course report him to the league etc administrators if there were aggravating circumstances or if he was interfering with play - but not on the basis of these facts alone!

[Rob]

I agree with jaybee - the laws are certainly not guidelines and have to be applied consistently by all umpires. I think generally I would give this OUT - the only thing to consider is whether there were any playing regulations stating that there is no coaching allowed from outside of the boundary. Many ECB competitions specifically state this.



If there was such a playing condition I would not allow the appeal and report the offending team. If no such regulation I would give the batsman out.

[missingleg]

If he's out then, on appeal, he must be given out. I have yet to come across any special playing conditions that would instruct or allow an umpire to give a perverse decision. An enormous can of worms would be opened & we'd have no leg to stand on when questioned after the match.

'Why wasn't that one out, ump?'
'It was out'
'Why didn't you give it then'
'Because in my opinion the appeal was invalid'
'Why?'
'You should have appealed immediately'
'I thought the laws allowed an appeal until the ball was next live'
'Yes but the appeal wasn't really your own'
'How can you say that?...and even if that were true who's to say I didn't want to appeal 'independently' anyway, or wouldn't have done so after having considered it?'
'Oh, so it was your appeal?'
'Yes, and so is this one, 'how's that''?
'Ahh that's different, okay, out.'

[sillypoint]

The imagined conversation by missing leg nicely sums up the nonsense of the approach apparently taken by Erasmus and advocated by Mayur. It is decidedly NOT the concern of the umpire how the appeal came about—of the players' own volition, prompted by a call from a spectator or an off-field official, having seen it on a video replay. Our only concern as umpires when there is a late appeal on anything is whether the appeal is timely according to the Laws. Then, of course, in order to answer the appeal we would have to have observed AT THE TIME the action(s) that brought about the appeal—that is, unless the umpires were using video referrals in which case they could then use that facility themselves to arrive at a decision.

[Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh]

Thanks all of you for your meaningful posts. I note down the positives from it.

[gully]

and if under ECB generic playing conditions
"Coaching shall not be permitted from the sidelines
during a match. In such an event, the umpire shall
request the coach/manager/parent/spectator to stop. If
this persists, the umpire shall have the power to warn the
offending team captain and manager that the matter will
be reported to the County Board/ECB."

I apprciate it's usually age cricket, but I would think asking the captain to appeal would constitute coaching and consider that would give me quite a quandary as it's unfair and against the playing regs