Positioning at Bowler's End

[Acumen]

To which side do you move when at the bowler’s end?

We have always taught to move to the side on which the ball has been played – with few exceptions – so that you have a clear view of the breaking of the wicket (whether it is clean and the exact moment).

However I notice a number of county umpires are now going the other way, possibly as a matter of personal safety following the recent tragedy.

What are your views? Should we change our teaching?

[ntfc2]

I follow the rule of thumb in the ECB Level 1 course - move to the same side as the ball unless it has been hit towards mid-off or mid-on.

The only time I have been hit I was at square leg and being aware that the throw was going to come close to me I crouched down. It flicked my ear on the way through. I have also seen a square leg umpire floored by a direct to the back of the head.

That being the case I would suggest that the issue of positioning at the bowler's end is not one of safety so much as good field craft. However, square leg umpires may be at greater risk of injury and perhaps need to pay a bit more attention to what goes on behind them.

[Acumen]

MALCOLM BARBER of Liverpool writes:

I understand that the ECB issued a statement to County 2nd XI umpires before the start of season 2009 to suggest that the better position overall was on the opposite side to the ball � all sorts of advantages � but it was a judgement call.

As a result I have forced myself to go opposite after years of ......etc..........etc...........and only go the side of ball when hit into the deep. Only an odd time has there been a possibility of an obscured view so I consider it beneficial.

ALAN TUFFERY of Dublin writes:

www.leinstercricketumpiresscorers.net/documents.html
links to a document that I put together on positioning some years ago. Essentially, I now teach that, if the ball is going to pass the line of the popping crease at your end, you should go the opposite side as the ball to avoid getting in the way.

PS Crossing over for left- and right-handers I also regard as very much optional.

[cavebubonem]

As a retired Health and Safety administrator, and now as an umpire and instructor, I strongly recommend moving so that the ball can be seen as well as the relevant line and wicket, which for the bowler's umpire means to the opposite side from which it is hit. If the benefit of moving to the other side were "a better view of the fielder collecting the throw and breaking the wicket", what is the Striker's End umpire to do when a square-cut is thrown back? Run to the side? Of course not. In these situations, as in virtually all attempted dismissals, we work as a team, and on several occasions I have requested, and received, assistance from my colleague, who is, I am certain, following the play!

[swerveman]

I've found for a while now that I move instinctively, not following the "same side as the ball" mantra.

It's working for me.

I also don't automatically switch sides for southpaws. If the batsmen scored one run per ball, I'd be running twice as far as they did!

[Michael Leddy]

I have read suggestions that umpires at the bowlers end should move to the side opposite to where the ball has been played.
Having done the opposite for the last 40 years, I disagree with this new idea and cannot see any sense in changing now.

[swerveman]

If your system's worked for you for the last 40 years, I think you should stick with it.

[umpireindia]

I go to the same side as the ball is except when within the 'V'. However, even Simon Taufel says he would go against the direction of the ball ALWAYS, which he says he feels comfortable. So, I would still go with my way of doing it.

[missingleg]

Yes, but Taufel et al never need to make a run-out decision at the bowler's end, they can just refer it.

We need to get into the best position in which to make a judgement. Having the bowler in line between you and the stumps is not the best position, in my opinion.

[swerveman]

The bowler will only be directly in line if the ball comes in from directly opposite. Most of the time, it won't. The striker's end umpire is in the same position 50% of the time, and I don't think I've had too many problems with run-outs.

cavebubonem's post is well considered:

If the benefit of moving to the other side were "a better view of the fielder collecting the throw and breaking the wicket", what is the Striker's End umpire to do when a square-cut is thrown back? Run to the side? Of course not. In these situations, as in virtually all attempted dismissals, we work as a team, and on several occasions I have requested, and received, assistance from my colleague, who is, I am certain, following the play!

[Number 6]

I have always gone to the opposite side to the ball. It's always seemed much more logical to me from a fieldcraft and from a safety point of view. Doing so also removes that slight hesitation that inevitably occurs when the ball is hit almost straight - how straight is almost straight in determining which side to move to?

Opposite to the ball, always.

[peterg]

Good to see other umpires who say they usually move to the side opposite where the ball has been played. I have always done this by instinct, because it gave me a much better view of the whole play, and also felt safer. In future I will discuss this before the match with my fellow umpire and will ask him/her to watch out for whether the wicket is broken cleanly in run-out appeals.

Also good to see other umpires who do not change sides for lefthanders. I usually try to do so but now feel that the risk of holding up play is too great.

[Number 6]

I've always moved to the opposite side to the ball, to me it's instinctive, it feels safer, it gives me a clearer view of all the play, there's no need to hesitate to decide if the ball is "in the vee" and I've never found that doing so has compromised my ability to judge run outs.

I also never change sides for left-handers. Again, this has never compromised my ability to manage the game.