Dog on field

[Rob]

Would appreciate it if anyone could tell me what should be done if a crowd member or a dog comes on to the field and takes the ball while it's on its way to the boundary? How many runs arescored? Thanks in advance.

[gooders]

This is a situation which should have been discussed at your pre-match talk with the captains.
It is customary to have decided whether or not a boundary allowance will be made if this should occur. Usually a boundary four, but as I have said it should already have been discussed before you take to the field, otherwise if the dog or person absconds with the ball it would become a lost ball, and then it would depend upon when the fielding side call it as lost ball how many runs would be scored, but it would then be a minimum of 6, and a lot of explaining would take place.
Basically, sort it before it has the chance to happen. Check Law19.1(c)

[wisden17]

I must admit this is something I've never discussed with a captain before the toss, and to be honest can't imagine ever doing so. I am fully aware of the advice above (which I've heard and read before), but really this isn't a very practical answer. Most captains will not be interested in hearing about what you'll do if a dog runs onto the field and picks up the ball, and quite frankly I don't think it sets a very good first impression if you've not umpired either team before.

My advice is to simply call and signal dead ball when it happens. The Lost Ball provisions would apply and if (big if) the batting side are aware of them and keep on running then I wouldn't act under Law 23, however, on all occasions when this has happened I have called and signalled dead ball. The reason being is that both sides have regarded the ball as no longer being in play; so under Law 23.1(b) I feel justified in calling dead ball.

[Acumen]

I used to mention this to captains and usually got funny looks. I always considered the case when a spectator or dog picked up ball - suggesting that this should be counted as a boundary.

I was embarrassed one day when a ball came to rest within the field and a large Alsatian came and resolutely stood guard over it making no attempt to touch it! Fortunately it belonged to one of the batsmen, who was even more embarrassed.

As soon as he realised, he stopped running and went over to the dog to retrieve the ball. At that point, I used common sense and called Dead Ball - otherwise he might have been out Handled Ball!

Since then I have decided to judge each situation on its merits without preliminary discussion.

Interestingly Rugby Union has laws which specify situations which should be resolved in favour of the visiting team - presuming that only home spectators would have courage to interfere OR that the security of the playing area is the responsibility of the home authority

[missingleg]

I have read the Laws a few times and I've never fully understood what action we're required to take in this instance. 'Lost ball' seems most appropriate but very harsh.

As for Gooders' comment about this needing to be discussed at the pre-match discussion, I feel this would solve all disputes but at the same time I know it never actually happens (as it's so rare).

I remember seeing this clip www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBodXag2W1w and wondering what I would have done. The umpire in this game called dead ball and 1 run was awarded because both sides had then ceased to regard the ball as being in play. It would have been interesting if the batsmen had continued to run though! When do you call 'dead ball'?

If the ball is clearly smashed to the boundary; the batsmen have not bothered to run and the dog/person has picked it up inside the boundary, I would probably say Law 43 comes into play and 4 is awarded.

If it's unclear as to whether or not the ball would have reached the boundary and it's intercepted by a non-player, I admit I wouldn't know what I should do. I don't even know the revevent law to quote other than if (a big if) both sides immediately cease to regard it as being in play.

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

[wisden17]

I will add Cricket Australia did produce some advice on this (however I don't seem to have it to hand, and can't locate it online at the moment), where they essentially said, much like Missingleg, if the ball was clearly going to cross the boundary and was intercepted and stopped from doing so a 4 should be awarded.

Personally, I see no basis in law for this, and if a match were to be decided due to those extra runs I'd feel rather uneasy about it! And I simply don't agree with awarding a boundary when the ball hasn't been correctly scored.

I think lost ball is a 'harsh' thing in most situations though, simply because very few (if any!) fielders will know to call lost ball. I've never done a game where it's been uttered, nor have I come across a colleague who has either.

[colinball]

I had an incident last when some blokes were playing football near our match. The ball was hit towards the boundary at the same time as the football was accidentally kicked onto the outfield. The footballer kicked his ball back, then picked up our ball and returned it to one of the fielders.
My colleague and I immediately agreed that we had previously agreed that obstacles within the field of play were boundaries, so awarded 4 runs.
A few umpires make a point of agreeing between themselves "dogs and kids as usual", but I'm not sure that even they take the trouble to inform the captains as the Law actually requires.
I think it would be much better if the Law were amended so that the above was the default position unless the umpires have agreed otherwise.

[umpire50]

I am thinking that it might be better to use common sense (Law 43?) in the majority of these situations. You and your colleague might find yourself placed in a very awkward position if, having agreed with the captains that all moving obstacles (dogs, people etc) within the field of play were boundaries, the following scenario ensued. The batting side require 4 to win off the last ball of a league match. The ball is hit towards a fielder on the boundary but, before he can return the ball to the 'keeper (with a maximum of 2 runs being scored), a supporter from the batting side runs on to the field and picks up the ball.

[sillypoint]

I'd like to add two points to this discussion. (1) It's interesting that a few contributors say they don't know what the Laws empower them to do. The obvious Law is 42.2, especially "If either umpire considers an action, not covered by the Laws, to be unfair ...". It seems silly to me to allow play to proceed following intervention of a dog, spectator, etc. Surely it's simply unfair, not a case for Lost Ball. Calling Dead Ball under 42.2 stops everything and gives you and the players time to sort things out and get back to the game.

(2) On the issue of runs to be allowed (and this is a significant matter, as umpire50 points out) I umpire in Melbourne, Australia in a competition which has a local rule to cover this: "If an unauthorised person [and if necessary, I'd extend this to cover dogs!] enters the playing area and handles the ball, the umpire at the bowler's end shall be the sole judge of whether the boundary allowance shall be scored, the ball be treated as still in play or be called 'dead ball' if a batsman is liable to be put out as a result of the unauthorised person handling the ball."

With those two provisions in mind I have never felt daunted by the prospect of interference with play by unauthorised participants; it's so rare most umpires will never see it happen, but it's nice to know that if it does I know where to hang my hat.