Bad Light

[tso]

Hi

I am not particularly looking to stay, but I have a question regarding bad light that I wanted to post on the first Umpiring forum I could find.

Last night, Fidel Edwards and Daren Powell of the West Indies were offered bad light at the end of Day 5 between England and WI. In law, does bad light have to be offered to the batsmen? Or can the umpires make that choice themselves?

I can only presume it's in the laws, as I feel it was a formality that Powell and Edwards would take it. With no chance of winning the game, their pure intention was holding on to the close of play. So as bad light would have brought this forward, they were always going to take it.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear this up for me.

TSO

[lofters]

My understanding on light [and 'weather ' conditions generally], in play, is there are two degrees of consideration... 1. Conditions are unfit for play, and 2. Conditions are deemed dangerous. There is a difference between the two, and the Umps are sole judges thereof.

If the Umps arrive at 1. then they offer to the batsmen....... if the Umps are at 2. then they should suspend/curtail play at once.

Would seem that last evening the chaps reached 1. with the assistance of their lightmeters and taking into consideration the meterreadings at the close of play on days 1 to 4.

Hope this makes sense.

[tso]

Yeah that makes sense, thanks. But what I want to know is whether the law states the umpires MUST ask the batsmen in that scenario? It strikes me as a strange thing to do otherwise, as Edwards have Powell would never have said no.

[lofters]

Well, in that scenario...... the umps would have..... conferred, thought the light was unfit, read their meter, found the reading was as at or worse than the previous days 'unfit' levels..... and, as per the Laws of Cricket, gave the batsmen the option to continue play or not.

Yes, Edwards and Powell were always going to head off...... but the Law is there to be honoured. Umps are not allowed to preempt the batting sides decision.

If the Umps had thought further play would have been DANGEROUS, then they could have directed the players off without further reference. As it was they deemed the light to be 'only' unfit for play.

[tippexii]

The umpire's can't know what the batsman's decision would have been. If the West Indies had needed 10 runs to win, they might well have not accepted the offer of the light.

[tso]

To be fair, you'd have to have been pretty stupid not to work out what they were going to do. Their pure purpose and intention out there was to hold out to the end of the day's play. With that in mind, anyone who knew what the scenario was will have known they were going to accept the offer.

lofter- Thanks for that; you've cleared it up

[TrueDub]

Feb 20, 2009 22:01:57 GMT tso said:

To be fair, you'd have to have been pretty stupid not to work out what they were going to do.

That's completely irrelevant to the decision though. The umpires decide on the conditions, then apply the Law as written down. It's then up to the teams to decide what to do.

Second-guessing the choices to be made will only result in your decision-making being poor. So whether you think it's stupid or not, that's the way it works!