Artificial Pitches - Protected area

[filbell]

I umpire in Cyprus where we only use artificial pitches. A couple of bowlers after delivery run down the line of the pitch onto what is deemed the protected area.
This is not damaging/altering the pitch during the game, so what are the views or guidelines with regard to the protected area?
Whilst not damaging the pitch it does obstruct my view of the ball and the batsman, one particular bowler I warn at the start of his bowling spell and advise him if he runs down that line I cannot see what happens and should he appeal I will most likely have to give not out if I could not see the incident.
This in fact has happened once a caught behind and one LBW and gave not out. (The bowler to his credit did not argue as I had already stated my case and got on with the game).
Also these bowlers may be playing in an ECB 2009 competition and the umpires there may not be so understanding/lenient.
Are there any guidlines for the protected area on artificial pitches or advice please?

[missingleg]

I suppose, technically, the Laws would be the same for an artificial pitch as they would be for a proper pitch. However, I would hope Law 43 comes into play here as nobody is actually damaging the pitch!

As far as the bowler running infront of the umpire's vision, he is well within his rights to do this. If you let him know it'll make it almost impossible to give a batsman out then he should adapt!

[swerveman]

The bowler has to get off the middle of the pitch before reaching the protected area. That starts five feet in front of the popping crease, so he doesn't have much room for manoeuvre. It doesn't matter a hoot whether the pitch is artificial or not.

[TrueDub]

Nov 18, 2008 20:33:23 GMT swerveman said:

The bowler has to get off the middle of the pitch before reaching the protected area. That starts five feet in front of the popping crease, so he doesn't have much room for manoeuvre. It doesn't matter a hoot whether the pitch is artificial or not.

I agree 100% - the nature of the pitch is irrelevant, the laws are clear.

[missingleg]

I disagree with you both. Surely there has to be some understanding as to why the laws are in place. Were you to umpire on an artificial pitch which is nearly impossible to damage, would you not be more lenient with this law? I was told it's prudent to adapt to the given situation. After all, I dare say if we enforced the laws to the letter on every occasion we would find ourselves in very awkward positions and we'd gain no respect from the players.

There are exceptions to this though, such as warnings for beamers, which must always be enforced for safety reasons.

I'm not saying we can pick and choose what laws to enforce and when to enforce them, because that's inconsistant; I'm suggesting a degree of temperence. In my opinion that's a better way to go about things.

[johnfgolding]

Nov 19, 2008 14:06:34 GMT missingleg said:

I disagree with you both. Surely there has to be some understanding as to why the laws are in place. Were you to umpire on an artificial pitch which is nearly impossible to damage, would you not be more lenient with this law? I was told it's prudent to adapt to the given situation. After all, I dare say if we enforced the laws to the letter on every occasion we would find ourselves in very awkward positions and we'd gain no respect from the players.

There are exceptions to this though, such as warnings for beamers, which must always be enforced for safety reasons.

I'm not saying we can pick and choose what laws to enforce and when to enforce them, because that's inconsistant; I'm suggesting a degree of temperence. In my opinion that's a better way to go about things.

I totally agree with Swerveman & TrueDub.
We are there to uphold the laws and to ensure the match flows so that players, spectators and officials all enjoy themselves. Law 43 is about common sense in how you interpret the laws – not pick and choose.
For instance if you decide not to enforce 42.12 what others may you be persuaded to not uphold. 42.14 maybe.

Law 43 is about saying to the bowler if you end up there I cannot possibly see an LBW or even a caught behind, the first time he encroaches. As has been previously said he will soon alter his follow through - problem solved.

Consistancy and accuracy are the two ways to gain respect.

[missingleg]

Yes, we are there to ensure the match flows and the players and spectators enjoy themselves. Therefore, what's the point of enforcing laws 42.12 and 42.14 as strictly as you would in a 'normal pitch' circumstance if those laws were designed to protect damage to the pitch? An artificial pitch cannot be damaged anywhere near the degree to that of a normal one.

Now, as for the bowler running in front of your vision, he's entitled to do this, but of course let him know it makes it impossible to make a decision in his favour.

I'm confused now, I originally stated that it shouldn't be a 'pick and choose' method, but one of adapting to the given situation. Now I'm still a rookie, but that's something I have found helpful. I do agree with your example of Law 43, but if he wants to plant his foot on a bit of astroturf which can't be damaged and which therefore neither team minds then what's the point of stepping in? I was told the best officials are those you don't notice unless called upon - and that the game is for the players.

All I'm really getting at saying is that I would be more lenient with law 42.12 if it were an astroturf pitch.

I love debates!

[TrueDub]

The Laws don't make mention of what type of pitch the match is being played on, they just refer to the protected area. It's a lot easier and more consistent as an umpire to protect that area in every circumstance, and to enforce the law constantly and consistently. This will win you more respect as an umpire than being "adaptable" might.

The bowler's not entitled to run in front of you, as that would place him on the protected area, which is forbidden by law. He's entitled to stop in front of you before reaching that area, in which case he'd better be prepared to receive no decisions from the bowlers-end umpire - including bowled, if the batsman stands his ground!

There's very little difference between "adapting to a situation", and "picking and choosing" - there are 42 laws, it will make your life easier, make you a better umpire and ensure consistency if you enforce them all as they are meant to be.

There's more than enough decisions and judgement calls to be made without giving yourself another thing to think about...

[missingleg]

I thank you for the advice TrueDub and of course I will take it on board, but I hope you can still understand my confusion. Cricket is so often run by a lack of common sense (just take a look at the India v England 3rd ODI to see that a match couldn't be completed due to needless delays and not using perfectly good floodlights - farcical).

Isn't it, though, more important to have an understanding of the reasoning behind the laws and interperet them with common sense. If you can't damage a pitch it doesn't need to be protected; there's no reason for the umpire to step in so readily.

If he chooses to run in front of you he should know it means you can't make decisions in his favour. Last season I had a spin bowler who delivered the ball right infront of me and moved a couple of feet in front of the popping crease (though when he knew what that meant he adapted). He didn't enter the protected area.

I like the idea of enforcing the law to the letter - but how often to any of us give, for example, an official warning the first time a batsman runs on the pitch because his little toe stepped on it as he was completing the run? How many of us actually give penalty runs for fielders who field the ball on the boundary after starting to walk in from a foot outside? He's technically left the field without permission.

One thing I hated about last season is the looks of contempt I got for strictly enforcing the waist and shoulder height laws for beamers, even if the ball delivered flew past the batsman outside off stump. It's there in black and white, but few umpires (at least at my level) enforce this and simply call no-ball with no further action taken. Laws put in for batsmen's safety are definately those which should be enforced to the letter.

In some other cases though (see above), if we enforced the laws to the letter, and dispensed with quiet words, we'd ruin the game.

I'm willing to bet nobody does their job as the laws (in their strictist sense) state - because they use common sense.

I hope you can understand my confusion and frustration here.

[wisden17]

Missingleg two points I'd make:

1) Artificial pitches can get damaged, fair enough takes a lot longer than with ordinary pitches, but still.

2) I'd be extremely worried if someone gave penalty runs "for fielders who field the ball on the boundary after starting to walk in from a foot outside". The laws make it quite clear this isn't leaving the field of play.

I'd certainly warn a bowler for running on the protected area on an artificial pitch, indeed I seem to think I have a couple of seasons ago. As others have said one of the main problems is he'll be running pretty much in front of you, so that alone, should be reason enough to at least have a word to tell him to get off the pitch sooner.

[TrueDub]

This is an interesting debate, it's always good to challenge why things are done a certain way.

Missingleg, I agree with you when you say that cricket is "often run by a lack of common sense", but 99% of the time this is due to unenforced or poorly-written regulations, not the Laws. There's no wiggle room on the 42 Laws, and not enforcing one in an applicable situation is a mistake.

You are 100% correct to enforce the beamer laws, and if other umpires don't enforce them it's their mistake - don't let it become yours! I had a long & involved on-field discussion with an ex-captain of Ireland regarding the bouncer law, and in the end simply said "It's the Law, so I'm calling it". He accepted it without being happy about it, because it was a consistent enforcement of the correct law.

As regards artificial pitches, I had another discussion (to put it politely) with a vastly-experienced player on this exact issue - it was on a mat, and he was running straight onto the protected area. He firstly laughed, then sneered when I asked him to stop, then got grumpy. I pointed out it was the Law, whether we were playing on grass, plastic, coconut matting or anything else, and that it was my job to enforce it. Again, he wasn't happy, but later approached me & said that he understood it was part of my role to enforce these things and "at least you have the b*lls to do it".

Like anything, constant use will wear out an artificial pitch, and the ball bouncing does enough damage (over the course of years) to a mat without bowlers running down the track too.

My view is this: the laws are written down for all to see. My job as an umpire is to enforce them, without fear or favour, as equitably as I can. If we start allowing little things, like protected area encroachment on an artificial pitch, you're losing the moral authority, and don't have a leg to stand on when you need to enforce something else with a player. I'd much sooner be known as "a picky b*stard, but a fair one"...

[missingleg]

Wisden17,

1) I'll accept that in some cases, though the author of this article wrote 'This is not damaging/altering the pitch during the game', so my opinion was based on that.

2) Where do the laws make it clear that this is not leaving the field, please? All I can find are Laws 2.5 and 2.6 which sugggest otherwise (though I never enforce it for fielders walking in because it's far too petty).

__________

TruDub,

Thanks. Although I disagree with some of the laws, you're right that if they're universal we all know where we stand. I would still be a bit embarrassed to warn a bowler for running on an artificial pitch but at least we all know where we stand, even though it seems bizarre. Perhaps we need to write to the MCC!

However, I still find it extremely hard to believe that any umpire, yourself included, enforces all the laws to the letter in any applicable situation. I mean, do you/should we really give a 1st official warning the first time a bowler touches a bit of the protected area or a batsman runs down the pitch for a second longer than he needs to? Should we give penalty runs if a fielder takes a catch on the boundary, having walked in from outside (I may yet be proven wrong on this law though!)? (EDIT: I was proven wrong!). Do we give warnings the first time we see a bit of time wasting or do we ask to move things along quicker? The laws are clear that we should do the former.

There are certainly many other examples where no umpire really obeys the law to its letter and instead has a 'quiet word'. Even Test umpires.

[wisden17]

Missingleg,

1) Have another read of Law 42.12, and perhaps compare it to 42.13. 42.12 makes no mention of any damage occuring. The point being there need be no damage for the law to be implemented.


2)I'm a little shocked you that you don't know this about fielders.

Anyway, Appendix D:

A player going briefly outside the boundary in the course of discharging his duties as a fielder is not absent from the field of play nor, for the purposes of Law 2.5 (Fielder absent or leaving the field), is he to be regarded as having left the field of play.

[missingleg]

Wisden,

1) I've re-read it. You're right, but I can't think of any other reason as to why it should be illegal.

2) Thanks. I have to say I'm a little emarrassed and ashamed to say I have only ever skirted through the Appendices, thinking them to be no more than diagrams and brief definitions of terms I already knew. I've been reading through all the numbered laws to find out where that was! Shows my ignorance, thanks for setting me straight. That's a really helpful lesson; sorry for questioning you.

[wisden17]

Missingleg,

1) There was an article on this topic in an edition of How's That? from a not too long ago. I'll have to dig it out at some point. Also I think Don Oslear mentions about it in his book, although I haven't got my copy on me at the moment. Again I'll check.

2) Haha, no worries. Apart from that there is very little else in Appendix D, which isn't really stating the obvious.