Refusal to play?

[Roland]

I would like to seek the opinions of this forum in relation to a situation that I have been asked to adjudicate on. The salient facts are as follows:

- In the first innings of the match, a member of the fielding side left the field after about an hour's play apparently suffering from a migraine
- he returned to the field some time later and was immediately introduced into the bowling attack
- the batsmen protested given the length of time that he had been off the field that he should not be allowed to bowl straight away as he had been off the field for (in their opinion) over 15 minutes
- the umpires called for a drinks break and consulted the scorers to ascertain the exact length of time that the player had been off the field. It appears that the scorers had not recorded the exact time at which the player left the field, and neither had the umpires (clearly an error by the umpires) and so they (the umpires) decided that as they did not have sufficient information to prevent him from bowling he could indeed bowl straight away
- The batsmen (under the instructions of their captain according to the umpires) refused to retake the field after the drinks break when it became apparent that the player in question would indeed bowl the next over
- The umpires and the fielding side took the field and after waiting 3 minutes, declared the game over and awarded the match to the fielding side

I have spared you most of the gory details, suffice to say that tempers were frayed on all sides at this juncture, but the point on which I would like your views is whether indeed the umpires were justified in awarding the match to the fielding side at this point given that they did not firstly inform the captain of the batting side of their intention to do so if he did not instruct the batsmen to retake the field

Grateful for your comments

[missingleg]

The umpires are required by law to investigate the reason why a team hasn't taken to the field. On that basis, I would say they weren't justified in awarding the match as they didn't investigate. Had they investigated and the team said the reason why...then they would be backed up, in law, for awarding the match. The reason would probably be something like 'I disagree with your decision' which does not permit, or excuse, a refusal to play.

This sounds like a sorry state of affairs and a few people could have had a lot more regard for the spirit of the game. A mistake was made in not noting the time...so the umpires would have had to make a judgement (unofficially a 'best guess') and be satisfied with it. Once they have satisfied themselves, the players have no right to take matters in their own hands during the match, but the umpires need to investigate before awarding a match.

That's my interpretation.

[Roland]

Thank you

[jaybee]

I don't think that I could improve on missingleg's answer.

[sillypoint]

I agree that missingleg's answer pretty much covers it. I would just add that a large part of this situation was built on the poor performance of the umpires themselves—they had no record (and perhaps no idea?) of the time the player left the field; did they KNOW that noting such details is part of their responsibilities?; in the absence of their own record, did they attempt to ascertain from the player and his captain the time he left in order to make a ruling as to when he could bowl again?; they clearly didn't know the procedure they must follow BEFORE a decision is taken to award a match. When umpires have themselves contributed to an ugly situation like this they need to be pretty conciliatory towards the players and their game in the resolution of it.

[davehemsworth]

I know this is an old thread, but I would add a brief conclusion.

It seems as though the umpires were not informed of the player's intention to leave the field of play. As this was the case they would have been entitled to use the unclean hands of the fielding captain to, in making a reasonable determination as to the length of the player's absence, shore up any uncertainty against the interests of the fielding side.

Taking this somewhat contra proferentem approach would, I think, avoid the difficulty of determining the exact period of absence and may encourage captains to fulfill their obligations under Law 2.