|
|
Post by jaybee on Jul 3, 2012 14:07:39 GMT
A couple of times I've been asked something which the bowler clearly intends to use to test whether he should chance his arm with an appeal.
I've no difficulty with a possible lbw shout when asked whether it was bat or pad first; 'bat' or 'not sure' will always result in a not out decision and if it's 'pad' that doesn't determine the decision because of the other variables involved.
But last weekend I was faced with a quite different situation. The ball, pitching outside leg, was more or less padded away, looping up very slightly in the general direction of where a forward short leg might have been and well away from the stumps. The batsman rather contemptuously and deliberately struck the ball away (on the full though that doesn't really matter) on the on-side and called 'No'.
The bowler, incidentally the fielding captain, put me on the spot by asking "Is he allowed to do that Ump?" and I did my best to give a non-committal answer. The bowler sensed what my decision would be and called to the striker that he shouldn't do that again or he would appeal (I then quietly said to the bowler that with an appeal of that sort I'd normally ask the skipper whether he'd wish to withdraw it before I gave a decision).
In the meantime the striker started to argue (to the bowler and from more than the 22 yards away) that there was nothing wrong and he was quite free to do this. There was no bad language but clearly there was history between the two and after a very short exchange the bowler appealed, resulting in my first-ever 'Hit the Ball Twice' decision. As the bowler had clearly refrained from an immediate shout I felt there was no point in asking him, in his role as captain, whether he wished to withdraw his own, considered, appeal.
Thinking about it I feel I should be armed with a ready but neutral response for a question which is clearly intended to see whether there's a chance of a successful appeal. 'You should know the laws too' seems a bit abrupt if it's a polite enquiry and 'You'd have to appeal to find out' probably provokes an appeal in a situation where I want the bowler/fielder to decide for himself without involving me. My job is to decide when he asks properly and not to give either side guidance of this sort.
What do others do - if they've faced this dilemma - and what do you think about it?
Does anybody have a useful all-purpose reply to cover the situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Jul 3, 2012 21:14:10 GMT
"I'll talk you through it in the bar" works for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Jul 21, 2012 12:30:31 GMT
I think all you can do is reflect on a situation such as this and try to learn what you can from it so that you are better able to deal with anything similar that arises in the future. That's the benefit of experience; we learn from it.
And for the record, in the circumstances you described I'd say out Hit the Ball Twice sounded like the right decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Sept 13, 2012 7:42:42 GMT
Nicely handled situation, I would think, Jaybee.
Awkward situation, no doubt. I might have said 'Only one way to find out'. But that would be interpreted as inviting an appeal.
One thing does stand out in your recount, though. Why should the umpire, in any situation, feel the need to check with the Captain to see if the appeal is, indeed, a serious one? One comes across this particular line of thought among umpires in a few situations like Hit the Ball Twice, Obstructing the Field, 'Mankaded' out, etc. Always wondered why this is so?
Is it not for the umpire to merely answer the appeal as 'Out' or 'Not Out' in the manner prescribed by Law? Being the keeper of someone else's conscience is hardly the umpire's role. The batsman has broken the Law and shall suffer the penalty. All 10 dismissals are at an equal level. Why is there a stigma, so to say, attached to a few?
And if at all the Captain feels uncomfortable, the Law allows him to withdraw the appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by igmc on Sept 14, 2012 17:30:31 GMT
jaybee
Sounds like you handled that properly. If the bowler wants to appeal, and pursues that appeal, then your call was right. Definitely 'hit the ball twice'.
Not that many players understand both 'hits' don't have to be off the bat!
To your original question - what to say to the fielder who, typically with a slightly confused expression, asks: 'Can he do that?' or 'Is he allowed to do that?'. For me, that does not qualify as an appeal under Law 27.
My reply is: 'Well, he just did'.
- Factually accurate
- A direct response to a direct question
- Non-committal
- Puts the onus back onto the player if he wants to follow it up
- Buys some time
This is not just a theoretical response. I was denied an 'Obstructing the Field' under not dissimilar circumstances, when the fielder just said 'Oh, OK' to my reply and wandered off. He was mortified when I told him after the game that an appeal would have brought a wicket - then he laughed and said 'and to think of some of the things we do appeal for'.
As for a more direct question:
'Isn't that Obstruction?'
'Isn't that Hitting the Ball Twice?'
I think my reply would be: 'What are you asking me?'. Law 27 isn't brilliant at defining what constitutes an appeal, apart from the generalised 'How's That'. To me, the above questions are almost tantamount to an appeal, so a request for clarification would not constitute direction or encouragement to follow a particular path.
I'd be interested in comments to the above approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Sept 15, 2012 7:03:08 GMT
No trouble at all with how the situation was handled by Jaybee and your comments. I would, for one, treat the direct questions, as they are phrased by you, as an appeal.
What do others think about a polite question from the bowler like 'What do you think that was?' Would it be answered as an appeal?
By and large, I am in agreement. One thing, however. Why be evasive when asked 'Can he do that?' or 'Is he allowed to do that?'
Why not simply say 'No'? Saying anything else is not a direct answer to a direct question.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 15, 2012 15:53:21 GMT
...I might have said 'Only one way to find out'. But that would be interpreted as inviting an appeal. ... Why should the umpire, in any situation, feel the need to check with the Captain to see if the appeal is, indeed, a serious one? One comes across this particular line of thought among umpires in a few situations like Hit the Ball Twice, Obstructing the Field, 'Mankaded' out, etc. Always wondered why this is so? ... And if at all the Captain feels uncomfortable, the Law allows him to withdraw the appeal. ... My reply is: 'Well, he just did'. - Factually accurate - A direct response to a direct question - Non-committal - Puts the onus back onto the player if he wants to follow it up - Buys some time - My dilemma was in not inviting an appeal as you so rightly observed. I think I've now come up with an answer - after a good deal of thought (see below).
- Withdrawal of appeal is, as you say, something that a captain can do. However in England umpires will often ask the fielding skipper in the sort of case you mention before giving a decision.
Usually this helps to uphold the Spirit of Cricket and to defuse a situation which might escalate because the batsmen would consider an appeal to be sharp practice. Additionally it may enhance the standing of the umpire and takes him (or her) out of the firing line if the fielding side persists with the appeal and leaves the batting team with a grudge.
igmc Very interesting that your suggestion meets most of the qualms that I had though I was surprised that it's put players off from appealing. That would swing it the other way from what my off-the-cuff response achieved and I was trying to be as neutral as I could. Faced with this situation again I think that what I'd say would be: "I'm sorry but I can't give advice". It gives nothing away and leaves it open for the bowler etc to appeal if they wish to take it further. Like you I'd be interested to hear what others think. PS At a recent course I attended the instructors were very much against answering whether it was pad or bat first when the bowler obviously asks as a preliminary to an appeal. I still think there's no harm in replying because it doesn't prejudice my right to answer out or not out as I see it - but do others disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by srinivasan on Sept 15, 2012 16:35:59 GMT
This is an excellent discussion between, I am sure, people who have tremendous knowledge of the game and experience. A very similar incident happened to me while officiating in our domestic tournament and I said exactly what Jaybee has written for "igmc". All I told that bowler was "I am sorry I can't answer that question now"...the question being "Umps...can he (name of the batsman) do that?” There was no appeal and hence no dismissal.
On the lighter side, I told the bowler after the match, who was almost reaching his final days on the field, to attend a Level '0' course when I conduct the next time. And, what a surprise, he registered and attended the course in full and answered the question himself during the class when I used his scenario for explaining Appeals.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Sept 18, 2012 7:54:17 GMT
From Jaybee...
Usually this helps to uphold the Spirit of Cricket and to defuse a situation which might escalate because the batsmen would consider an appeal to be sharp practice. Additionally it may enhance the standing of the umpire and takes him (or her) out of the firing line if the fielding side persists with the appeal and leaves the batting team with a grudge.
Hello, Jaybee. You have good company when you say this is your thinking. Fair enough. Many do think this enhances their standing.
Just for argument's sake...
How is any appeal a sharp practice? I'm not entirely right there - there are many intended to mislead and to win a decision.
In the case of an appeal for 'Handled the Ball' and such, how would the umpire be in the 'firing line'. He merely does the job of answering an appeal. The batsman might feel aggrieved but that grievance is largely misplaced.
My point is that some of the dismissals seem to come to have a stigma attached to them, regardless of the fact that the batsman is the transgressor. Just suggesting that we come out of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 20, 2012 6:42:34 GMT
From Jaybee... Just for argument's sake... How is any appeal a sharp practice? I'm not entirely right there - there are many intended to mislead and to win a decision. In the case of an appeal for 'Handled the Ball' and such, how would the umpire be in the 'firing line'. He merely does the job of answering an appeal. The batsman might feel aggrieved but that grievance is largely misplaced. My point is that some of the dismissals seem to come to have a stigma attached to them, regardless of the fact that the batsman is the transgressor.... On the first point the preamble to the Laws says that: " 5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
... To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance:
(a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out ...." Admittedly 'Handled the Ball' is a situation which is less likely to give rise to the ill-feeling that a sharp appeal for returning the ball to the fielders without permission or running out the non-striker for backing up too enthusiastically might do. As pointed out by mrsinghIndia some dismissals do seem to have a stigma attached to them, and it follows that what is important to consider is how the players involved perceive things. Early this season I turned down an appeal for caught behind. The keeper, standing back, threw down the wicket after a short pause and my colleague gave the batsman out - he had good reason for considering that the ball was still in play. The non-striker started muttering along the lines of 'is this the way we're going to play'. Shortly afterwards a second 'not out' decision from me for caught behind clearly caused a bit of 'disappointment' to the slip cordon so I had a quiet word with the fielding captain at the end of the over. The fielding side hadn't overstepped the mark but I didn't want anything to allow the remaining batsman's sense of injustice to feed on this and the game continued in good spirit. The point I'm trying to make - rather poorly I suspect - is that players may view something in a way that's different from what the umpire - or the other side - sees as the reality, and might take umbrage at something because they see an intention which might not be there. If the umpire suspects that this might happen then it makes sense to do something to avoid this situation. Turning back to the question of the 'firing line' a hasty answer in one of these delicate situations may colour the players' view of the official and affect how they see a later decision from him (or her). If an appeal might be seen as sharp practice it makes sense to ensure that the fielding side has a chance to reflect before going through with it and puts the responsibility for making it onto the fielding captain, where it belongs. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Sept 22, 2012 5:35:25 GMT
On the first point the preamble to the Laws says that:"5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
... To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance:
(a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out ...."
In my earlier post, I do agree that a lot of appeals are made with intent to deceive and therefore 'sharp' and must be actively discouraged. Am with you on this.
Admittedly 'Handled the Ball' is a situation which is less likely to give rise to the ill-feeling that a sharp appeal for returning the ball to the fielders without permission or running out the non-striker for backing up too enthusiastically might do. As pointed out by mrsinghIndia some dismissals do seem to have a stigma attached to them, and it follows that what is important to consider is how the players involved perceive things.
Yes. It is 'Hit the Ball Twice' when returning the ball to the fielding side or 'Mankading' or 'Obstructing the Field' which can cause some rancor.
Early this season I turned down an appeal for caught behind. The keeper, standing back, threw down the wicket after a short pause and my colleague gave the batsman out - he had good reason for considering that the ball was still in play.
The non-striker started muttering along the lines of 'is this the way we're going to play'. Shortly afterwards a second 'not out' decision from me for caught behind clearly caused a bit of 'disappointment' to the slip cordon so I had a quiet word with the fielding captain at the end of the over. The fielding side hadn't overstepped the mark but I didn't want anything to allow the remaining batsman's sense of injustice to feed on this and the game continued in good spirit.
Great, I would think. Have myself had occasion to nip in the bud any situation that could worsen.
The point I'm trying to make - rather poorly I suspect - is that players may view something in a way that's different from what the umpire - or the other side - sees as the reality, and might take umbrage at something because they see an intention which might not be there. If the umpire suspects that this might happen then it makes sense to do something to avoid this situation.
Isn't that nearly always the case? We could worry ourselves sick on this account.
Turning back to the question of the 'firing line' a hasty answer in one of these delicate situations may colour the players' view of the official and affect how they see a later decision from him (or her). If an appeal might be seen as sharp practice it makes sense to ensure that the fielding side has a chance to reflect before going through with it and puts the responsibility for making it onto the fielding captain, where it belongs.
I would only reiterate that we should, in my view, respond by answering the appeal based on the facts before us. There is always the option, under the Laws, to the batting captain to withdraw the appeal. Let's leave it to him to exercise it if he wishes.
Just a way of looking at the situation and our role in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by ankush94 on Sept 24, 2012 15:05:30 GMT
Hi everyone,
Appreciate if posts could be kept brief.
And underlining, bold, italics, references-to-references be totally avoided.
This is a chat room right?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Sept 25, 2012 5:35:36 GMT
Hi Ankush,
Will keep your instructions in mind.
While brevity is certainly to be appreciated, the rest are formatting tools the system allows and are resorted to when deemed necessary for emphasizing or laying stress upon a point. Cross references are needed for connecting to the item being discussed.
One is, of course, free not to read anything the formatting of which or what is being said, is not to one's liking. Cheers!
|
|
