Contentious boundaries

[davida]

I was umpiring a match at the weekend and a lad fielded a ball on the boundary which looked a legitimate save of a four.  The ensuing throw in resulted in a run out.  As the batter was about to walk off the field, many of the home "supporters" who were not really watching the game and more interested in drinking shouted "that was a four".  I consulted with the other umpire who intimated that he saw the fielder touch the boundary.  Who's word do we take here.

1. the UNRELIABLE / BIASED crowd who maybe had the BEST VIEW
2. the FIELDER who stated that the ball didn't go for 4
3. the other umpire who claimed he had seen the foot (in contact with the ball), even though he didn't have  a great view from over 100m away.

My view was that the fielder's view should be the only view in local cricket unless one of the umpire has a clear view.  Which we didn't IMO.  The crowd should be ignored.  What do we all think.

PS. I am a very part time umpire

[sillypoint]

There are some interesting points to consider here:
1. Who's decision was the Run Out? Yours, or the other umpire's?
Based on your description I assume it was your decision, but you don't say so. You only say "The ensuing throw in resulted in a run out"
2.   At the time the ball was being fielded, did you have any reason to think the fielder may have made contact with the boundary?
You say it: "looked a legitimate save". Both umpires should be monitoring the fielding of the ball, to the best of their ability—along with the several other things to be monitored whenever runs are in progress. Assuming the Run out was your decision, if you had any doubt at all about the fielding you should, before giving a decision, have called Dead Ball and consulted with your colleague.
3.   If umpires are unsure about the legitimacy of fielding in the deep, the common sense convention is to ask the player—but be careful what you ask! Make sure you focus on your point of doubt. Don't say: "Was that a four?" but instead ask: "Did your foot touch the boundary as you fielded the ball?" The first may be answered in the negatively simply out of ignorance of the Law. The second is far more likely to elicit the information you need. But most importantly, if you need to ask it indicates to everyone that you are not sure, so having asked, accept their judgement.
4.   In the strict cricket sense, the crowd is irrelevant. You should try to avoid responding to calls from that direction. Focus on what is happening inside the boundary. Do your darnedest to cover everything, but even if their calls cause you to wonder, try to handle the situation in a way that appears as if you are just acting on the doubts you already had.
Good on your for putting the question up. That's how we all learn from our experiences, and those of others.

[davida]

Thanks sillypoint

I hadn't considered the decision of the run out to be important, but I indeed made that decision - there was no contention about that actual decision but I was in a position to watch the fielding and the run out. I would say the ball didn't cross the boundary but the fielders foot may have touched the line as he fielded it. Very hard to say either way for anyone, especially the umpires. Your point 3 makes perfect sense and is how I would have played it until their umpire stepped in and said he saw it. It could have cost us the game but thankfully it didn't. The joys of none neutral umpiring! 90% of supporters at cricket matches are non-biased and so I would often trust them but in this case I'm not sure. Thanks for your feedback and very succinct advise.

[sillypoint]

Re: "their umpire stepped in and said he saw it" and "It could have cost us the game"
Interesting that you describe the other umpire as "theirs", but also refer to yourself as being part of one of the teams.
In that situation it is important to remember that you were both out there as umpires at the time, and that your role is "to control the match as required by the Laws, with absolute impartiality" (Law 2.1) It can be hard to do that when your heart lies with one of the teams, but you do your best—and importantly, you assume that all player umpires are doing that. Always respect that assumption.
Your also say that the other umpire said he saw the fielder's foot touch the boundary. Whether he is right or wrong you have to accept his word if he is sure—he is there to umpire. If he is being partial then that is on his head, not yours.
The order of priority for witnesses is undoubtedly:
– the umpires, if they are sure of what they have seen
– if necessary the player involved
– if doubt remains, the decision should favour the batter
Good on you for taking such an interest in the umpiring role. There's a career path waiting for you when you decide you no longer wish to play.