|
|
Post by Acumen on May 15, 2012 10:15:05 GMT
I received the following interesting question from a player and wondered what your views are.
Whilst playing at the weekend the silly mid off was wearing pads under his trousers. No problem as I did hit him with the ball. Later in the game the fielder had moved to a wide mid off position approx 30-40 yds from the strikers end. I again hit the ball very firmly in his direction.
He made no attempt to stop the ball with his hands, deliberately using his under trouser pads to stop the ball. He would not have done it that way if he was not wearing them, it was hit very hard.
I did ask the fielding captain if this was legal/in the spirit of the game, and just got a bit of abuse back.
The small pads were visible, sticking out the bottom of his trousers, there were no official umpires in the match.
Would you regard this as external protection?
|
|
|
|
Post by umpire50 on May 15, 2012 15:17:53 GMT
Not sure about this; wonder if MCC have made any ruling.
As a side issue, is anyone else fed up with the time that iswasted bringing thse pads on and off the field of play as well as putting them on and taking them off again. Should Law 2.1 (c) be invoked?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on May 16, 2012 6:38:48 GMT
... is anyone else fed up with the time that is wasted ... Should Law 2.1 (c) be invoked? Haven't had this problem (yet) but agree that either 2.1(c) or 42.9 (Time wasting by the fielding side) should certainly be considered. I think it would be hard to justify saying it is 'external' protection but could you insist that the bottom of the leg guard is tucked into his sock if the trousers are at half mast?  |
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on May 18, 2012 4:58:11 GMT
Offer my views on the issues here...
External / Internal protective equipment:
Agree that the trouser leg or sock should cover the pads. If not, it is illegal and should attract penalties. (Mere peeking out below the trouser leg shouldn't be penalised)
The basic principle of Law being, in my view, that the Umpire will not concern himself with what is worn internally. Practically not possible to regulate what is worn internally.
In the instance quoted, that of a fielder using those pads to stop the ball, I would think Law 42.2 can be used. The umpires can take the view that these pads are for protection and not for fielding the way it is described. If it is considered unfair by the umpires, (it would seem so to me) Law 42.2 empowers the umpire to act. A 5-run penalty won't apply, but a warning and reporting will.
This Law is there in the statutes because acts of unfair play are ever-evolving and there can never be an exhaustive list of acts of unfair play. It will always be for the umpires to take a view and act.
Time wasting in bring on or taking off protective equipment:
We do see a lot of time being wasted in this area. Some time certainly will be taken and is part of the game and not treated as time wasting. Whenever I see such equipment coming on, I always ask the fielding side to hurry up. "Let's hurry it up" or "Thoda jaldi". Works a treat. The biggest time-waster is exchange of protective equipment, which, in my view, should be actively discouraged. There should be a very good reason to allow this exchange and the spending of playing time over it.
In my view, it is necessary, in order to make it clear to players and umpires, to put down in the Laws that all such actions are subject to the overriding consideration that time will not be wasted.
I have seen this getting diluted over recent years. So much so, as in the present case, that umpires are not sure whether they are to stop such time wasting. And Captains are not convinced of their role in avoiding waste of time.
The ICC has, in its regulations, a clause that does say that no time should be wasted in all actions involving protective equipment (bringing on, exchanging, etc of protective equipment.
|
|
