keepers with one glove ??

[Acumen]

I am told that some wicket keepers are now wearing only one glove leaving the other hand free to throw more accurately.

I assume the spare glove is taken off the field or placed under the helmet - or somewhere else out of the way. Obviously any contact would incur five penalty runs.

Some umpires feel that keepers should either wear two gloves or none. Would you allow a keeper with only one glove?

[jaybee]

I'm rather tempted to answer the question with a question: would you allow a keeper with no glove at all? I've no doubt that I would and if so it's logical that just one is OK.

Looking at Law 41.1 which starts "No fielder other than the wicket-keeper shall be permitted to wear gloves or external leg guards...." the wording is permissive rather than prescriptive as far as the keeper is concerned, so all's well from that point of view.

I certainly agree that, unless off the field completely, the glove ought to be put under or inside any helmet left behind it and in line. I'm not so sure about "somewhere else out of the way" - the only other 'safe' places are outside the boundary or carried on the keeper's (or another fielder's) person.

[tippexii]

It's never been a problem for keepers to discard a glove while chasing after the ball, so I can't see any problem with taking a glove off before the ball's bowled. As well as the spare glove being stored properly, it might be worth keeping an eye out to ensure that the remaining glove complies with the requirements of Law 40.2, and that ther's no attempt to move towards a baseball-style catcher's mitt.

[chiggers]

Admittedly it was under the pre-2000 Laws, but didn't Ian Botham finish his first-class career by keeping wicket without pads or gloves?

[missingleg]

I have no problem with a keeper discarding his glove or gloves if that's what he wants to do.

Don't see how the argument of 2 gloves or none can be backed up in law.

[SUHAS SAPRE]

I would like to offer my comments on using one glove by WK.

The Law:40 -The Wicket Keeper, is clear about using two gloves. It is mentioned in Law -40.1 (Protective Equipment) It states, " The Wicket Keeper is the only fielder permitted to wear gloves and external leg guards. If he does so these are to be regarded as part of his person for the purpose of Law 41.2 (Fielding the ball).

What is expected of WK is,

1. He should stand reasonably behind the stumps
2. He must stand far enough to see the ball and can take the catch or stump the striker.
3. He alone is allowed to wear external leg guards and gloves.

So, nowhere in the Laws mentioned of one glove, it is always "Gloves". He should not be allowed to keep wicket with one glove. He discards his one glove while chasing the ball and picking up the ball and to enable him to grip the ball for further disposal. But he cannot be allowed to keep wickets with one glove. The Law itself dictates that WK should wear pads and gloves and he should adhere to what Law states.

If otherwise, the Law should clearly mention that WK can keep wickets with one or two glove /gloves or without gloves.

So I am of the opinion that WK should not be allowed with one glove to keep wickets. Its a breach of Law and can be treated as punishable act.

Suhas Sapre (Umpire- Baroda Cricket Association-13/10/2012)

[mrsinghIndia]

My view is that he can wear no gloves or one glove or both gloves.
Agree with Jaybee when he says 'the wording is permissive rather than prescriptive'.
However, I would not like to see any piece of equipment belonging to the fielding side placed where the Law allows them to place the helmet. Even if a penalty is imposed.
I like to think that the general rule of Law is that no piece of equipment belonging to the fielding side shall have any place on the ground except where special allowance is made for the helmet. I take the view, which may be considered rigid, that any other rejected piece of equipment has to be carried on the person of the fielder, incl the WK till it can be conveniently sent off. Of course, sad to say, I have seen the WK's glove placed there or a 'box' or shin guards placed there by a fielder - and play merrily goes on!

[gully]

I think the law is pretty clear

"The Law:40 -The Wicket Keeper, is clear about using two gloves. It is mentioned in Law -40.1 (Protective Equipment) It states, " The Wicket Keeper is the only fielder permitted to wear gloves and external leg guards. If he does so these are to be regarded as part of his person for the purpose of Law 41.2 (Fielding the ball).

"if he does so" being the significant part; which indicates he has a choice

[Mike]

Please do not misinterpret this as a position on the original question, its a genuine question.

Would the statement in the preamble regarding upholding the games traditional values play a part? I can see the law is subjective and could be interpreted to either disallow or allow the single glove, so would it be appropriate for an umpire to disallow the single glove by applying the traditional value statement in combination with Law40?

[jaybee]

I don't think that there would be any conflict at all with the game's traditional values.
The WK's gloves are protective equipment and in my younger days in rural cricket, with a shortage of kit, it was far from unusual to see somebody come in to bat wearing just one pad and/or no gloves. Indeed some seemed to think it a point of honour to shun such protection!
In the modern era, with the stress on the duty of care, umpires and others have been required to insist that under-18s wear a helmet when batting or standing up as keeper but otherwise a batsman or keeper is free to choose whether to use this protection.
As somebody pointed out earlier there's no problem if one or both gloves are discarded. If the ball then strikes it/them the same penalty applies whether discarded or left off from the word go.

[sillypoint]

Law 40.1 only says that the wicket-keeper is "permitted" to wear gloves; it does not say that he must. In fact the words "If he does so …" in the second sentence of this Law provides for the possibility of the keeper choosing not to.