four or five?

[deafandblind]

At a ground in our county there is a tree inside the boundary and local custom is if hit always a four. Standing with an umpire of thirty years experience (my fourth year) a few weeks ago this incident occurred :
The ball was hit legally and was running down and had just missed the tree, a young fielder picked it up -cries of mind the tree - and threw it through the tree to general amusement. The batsmen had run the first run and were on their second at the instant of ball hitting the branches. He informed the captain of the fielding side this was 5 runs and the scorers were informed.
After the match the two captains and us umpires were having a very friendly discussion about this incident and Law19.7 iii was quoted as this appeared to us as a willful act by the fielder.
Were we right? - As expected the fielder in question was ribbed for the rest of the innings - of course the ball followed him - as wherever he was fielding shouts of mind the tree rang forth from spectators and fielders alike.

[missingleg]

If the local custom is, 'if hit, always a four' then it's four - otherwise I suppose it would depend on your pre-match discussion with the captains.


Law 19.1

(c) An obstacle or person within the field of play shall not be regarded as a boundary unless so decided by the umpires before the toss. See Law 3.4 (To inform captains and scorers).


I suppose it was a wilful act to throw the ball back but not to hit the tree. You'd have to get the lawyers involved! In any case, I'd give it as four if the local custom is 'if hit, always a four'.

[sillypoint]

You were correct to award five runs. It is always worth reminding ourselves that "wilful" simply means an act of will, i.e. something the player could have avoided doing, rather than purely accidental. In this case it perhaps was accidental that the ball hit the tree. However, it should be noted that Law 19.7 covers not just a boundary "from a wilful act" but also "from an overthrow". This Law is there to prevent fielders from trying to gain an advantage (eg. to keep a bunny on strike rather than allow a single) by conceding a boundary—whether blatantly deliberately, of "accidentally on purpose". Because of its wording we do not have to try and judge what was in the fielder's mind but only judge the observable facts—whether the ball was helped over the boundary in some way by the fielder's actions.

[tippex2]

Agree it should be 5 (or 6 - you don't mention whether the batsmen had crossed on their second run by the time of the throw). This is no different to an overthrow crossing the boundary. It would have been more obvious if it had been a throw from the other side of the ground being missed and running on to hit the tree.

[missingleg]

Would it not depend on the exact wording of the local custom?

'If hit, always a four' seems pretty absolute. After all, it's not part of the boundary and the ball would still be live having hit it if no such custom existed.

If the local custom were 'treat it the same as a boundary' then I'd give five too.

[tippex2]

I'm assuming that the custom (whatever the precise wording, which I assume changes from week to week depending on who's explaining it) is for it to be treated as a boundary, with an allowance of 4 no matter if it's hit via the ground or in the air.

If it's "4 in any and all circumstances", this gives rise to a potential unfairness / absurdity when the batsmen have run 5 or 6 (presumably after overthrows) but a fielder can throw the ball against the tree and chalk off some of the runs which have already been completed

[sillypoint]

I disagree with tippex2: "If it's "4 in any and all circumstances", this gives rise to a potential unfairness / absurdity when the batsmen have run 5 or 6 (presumably after overthrows) but a fielder can throw the ball against the tree and chalk off some of the runs which have already been completed"

• If the batsmen have simply run 5 or 6, then 19.6.b.ii would apply—they would get the runs completed, including the one in progress if already crossed, as it exceeds the boundary allowance
• If an overthrow has occurred Law 19.7 would apply—they would get the runs completed, including the one in progress if already crossed, PLUS the boundary allowance

As I stated in my previous post, the whole point of Law 19.7 is to prevent what you suggest: "a fielder can throw the ball against the tree and chalk off some of the runs which have already been completed"