Practice in the outfield

[zaump]

Hi all

I have a question regarding Law 17 - practice on the field. Suppose a fielder is found to be practicing catches during the game (between overs, say) in the outfield with a ball that is not the match ball.

That contravenes Law 17 (3)(b):

3. Practice on the outfield between the call of Play and the call of Time

(a) The restrictions in (b), (c) and (d) below shall apply not only between the call of Play and the call of Time but also during an interval for drinks, or on any other occasion when Time has been called but the players remain on the field of play.

(b) No ball other than the match ball may be used on the field of play.


And the law seems clear about punishment:

5. Penalties for contravention

All forms of practice are subject to the provisions of Laws 42.3 (The match ball – changing its condition), 42.9 (Time wasting by the fielding side) and 42.13 (Fielder damaging the pitch). Additionally, if there is a contravention of any of the provisions of 1, 2, or 3 above, the following penalties will apply.

If the contravention is

(a) by a fielder, he shall not be allowed to bowl after the contravention until either at least one hour has elapsed or there has been at least 30 minutes of playing time since the contravention, whichever is sooner.

So, is it correct to rule that a fielder using a non-match ball in the outfield will not be permitted to bowl for 60/30 mins?

That seems harsh, but it also seems pointless if it's not a bowler - since he won't be bowling anyway, what's to stop him just carrying on with the spare ball? Would you cite him under 42(18) for conduct?

Thanks in advance!

[sillypoint]

Yes. Tell him the practice is not permitted, and also advise his captain. Then if it persists you report him for failing to comply with your instructions.

[zaump]

Aug 16, 2016 11:49:31 GMT sillypoint said:

Yes. Tell him the practice is not permitted, and also advise his captain. Then if it persists you report him for failing to comply with your instructions.

Thanks for the answer! Just to be clear, when you say yes, do you mean yes, the bowling ban should stand?

[sillypoint]

It depends. If it seems an innocent enough action initially—often players do stuff they don't realise is contrary to the Laws, simply because they don't know them—I often tell them what the Law says, which is usually sufficient to stop the action. On the other hand, if it is a senior player with plenty of knowledge and experience who seems to be blatantly "trying it on" I might apply the penalty at once. Attitude makes a difference. And often players take no notice of warnings anyhow, so you have to follow up by applying the penalty anyhow.

[zaump]

Aug 16, 2016 22:13:45 GMT sillypoint said:

It depends. If it seems an innocent enough action initially—often players do stuff they don't realise is contrary to the Laws, simply because they don't know them—I often tell them what the Law says, which is usually sufficient to stop the action. On the other hand, if it is a senior player with plenty of knowledge and experience who seems to be blatantly "trying it on" I might apply the penalty at once. Attitude makes a difference. And often players take no notice of warnings anyhow, so you have to follow up by applying the penalty anyhow.

Yes, that makes sense. My concern in such cases is generally that by not applying the law as written we may risk complaint from the opposing captain if that player IS brought on as a surprise change bowler. You know, the "hang on, why wasn't he on a bowling ban after you caught him practicing in the outfield?" sort of complaint.
Never seen it actually happen in a game, though.


The main reason this particular issue came up at all though is that we recently had a debate about it within our association lately. One of the senior assessors here is adamant that the law does not, as written, allow (much less mandate) a bowling penalty at all for that infringement, so catching practice with a spare ball in the outfield could not trigger that penalty under any circumstance. He's a senior trainer too so usually spot on with law and interpretation, but in this case I just don't understand his reading of the law.

[Dylx8]

I suspect that the senior assessor/trainer is applying an out of date version of Law 17. He'd be right under the 2010 version (2000 Code 4th Edition).

[zaump]

Aug 17, 2016 10:22:52 GMT Dylx8 said:

I suspect that the senior assessor/trainer is applying an out of date version of Law 17. He'd be right under the 2010 version (2000 Code 4th Edition).

Ahh...you may have put your finger on it! The 2000 Code 4th edition laws don't make mention of non-match balls under Law 17. It was completely revised (again) in 2013. 

Full marks, Dylx8

[zaump]

Quick update: heard back from the MCC about this:


"Thank you for your enquiry about the Laws.

Your analysis below is correct, and you have reasonably pointed out that the penalties for contravention vary inappropriately depending upon whether the offender is a batsman or fielder and upon whether that fielder is intending to bowl.

For this reason, Law 17 is under scrutiny in the current review of the Laws for the new Code in 2017.

It is likely to substantially amended, and that there will be a single penalty (5 penalty runs) awarded against any player committing an offence.

As far as the appropriate response by an umpire in a match situation is concerned at present, and I write as an experienced umpire in the UK, on the first occurrence of any of the offences in Law 17, I would initially advise that the inappropriate practice should stop forthwith, and inform the captain of the offending side that this advice has been given. This should result in its termination, in which case I would take no further action. However, if it were to be repeated by the same side, then I would immediately apply the penalties as stated in Law 17."