"HOW'S THAT?"

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 80, 8 April 1929, Page 11

"HOW'S THAT?"

LBW DECISIONS

IMPORTANT CRICKET LAW

POINTS OF INTEEEST

One of the most, discussed laws, of cricket i's that which deals with leg before wicket. .By Mr. D. M'Kenzie, the well-known cricket umpire and official, it. is regarded as the most important of the laws, and in a recent address he dealt with many points of interest concerning it. Oho Writer in beginning a treatise on this phase of crajfcet law said that if, in the years tocome, an Ibw appeal was not again ansvered in. the affirmative it would not square the- account with the many bad decisions that had been given in tho past. Mr. M'Kenzio does not subscribe to that statement, nor agree with another that the umpire is invariably wrong when he decides an appeal for Ibw in the bowler's favour and sends ,tho batsman back to the pavilion. It was pointed out by Mr. M'/Konzio, however, that there was. a lot to bo said for the batsman who feels that he has been badly dealt with by the umpire when he is adjudged to be in front of his wickets when tho ball hits him. In England recently attempts have been made to alter the reading of the Ibw rule, with the object of preventing the batsman ■ from using his legs to a ball pitched on the off-side of the wicket to keep the ball out of his wickets. The contention made was that in a case of this sort the batsman's sole means of defence should be the bat. But this amendment was not accepted by the governing body of cricket —the Marylebone Cricket Club—and the rule remains the same as it is now printed in the book. MAKING A DECISION. There are three things'the _ umpire has to decide between the time tho appeal is mado to him and the giving of his decision. And it must not be forgotten that tho decision must bo given promptly; in other words, the umpire's mind is made up even before the- appeal is made.' Tho three points in their order are:— ' (1) Did the ball pitch in a straight line between wicket' and wicket?— The width of the"" wickets is eight inches, and in his mind the umpire has three parallel lines running from one end of tho pitch to the other. Directly tho ball is delivered he watches its flight, and : - straightway determines whether it has pitched within- the parallel lines referred to. What does the pitch of. the ball.mean? Does it mean that the whole ball must pitch in the defined area, or is it sufficient for tho smallest fraction- —or even the inside edger-of ."the ball to land within the area' referred to? "It may bo noticed that-on a wet "day the ball occasionally clips a piece out of the turf, tind this is done by :.the exaet'eentre of the ball as it strikes the ground," said Mr. M'Kenzie. '"This carries to me the conviction that for a ball to pitch on the wickei; at least half of it should be inside' the. off-stump' or the. legBtump, whichever direction the ball is coming from. This maybe drawing things rather fine, but I hold that, as far as a leg-before-wicket decision is concerned, umpires must base their conclusions on the finest points possible." ROUND THE WICKET. The second question to bo considered is: Would "the ball have hit the wicket? —It has been proved by the mathematician that a bowler delivering round the wicket withagood length-ball can-: not possibly hit the wicket with a ball pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket; that is", with, a ball'that follows its' natural ' course ' from the bowler's'arm until it passes the -batsman. Therefore, for a round-the-wicket bowler to get an Ibw appeal answered in the' affirmative, the ball; has to alter its course, to wit, break back, in some cases a matter. of thirteen inches.' 'This>would be out of alj reason for a fast or a medium-fast bowler, and would only be- -possible— and that" on'very rare occasions—by a slow bowler. But at/.tirries .the flight of the'ball does 'not' agree with' the conclusions, of themathematician^' ,and . circumstances alone should guide . the umpire. ! ' . Would the-ball"'have hit-the wicket?' H. M. M'Qirr, a member.of the New. Zealand team tht^ toured' England, has stated that the ih'st-class umpires in the Old Country bo.-ad down so as to. get in such a position that thoy get the tops of the wickets at both ends in focus. '"Some of us—for good and valid reasons—may; not be able to emulate the wearers of the white coat in England," Mr. M'Kenzio remarked, ''but their procedure appears to be a sound one. They get a good sight of the flight of ■' the ball, and can* tell whether it is likely to go over the top of the wickets or not... It is immaterial where the ball hits the batsman; would it have hit the wicket is all that matters. There was an impression at one time that if the batsman was hit other than on. his leg he could not be givon out leg-bef ore-wicket, but that impression has been . exploded .long ago." Having decided that the ball was pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket, and that it would have hit the wicket if it had not been obstructed, the third question the umpire has to decide is: "Was it part of the batsman's person, other than his bat or hand, that stopped the. progress of the ball?" This should present no difficulties to him, provided he remembers that if.the ball is struck first by the bat and then hits the batsman's person the latter is not out.; But if the ball hits tho leg before hitting tho bat the batsman can be adjudged Ibw. SOME INSTANCES. ' Mr. M'Kenzie said that John Moss, who accompanied tho English team (captained by "Plum" Warner) through New Zealand as baggage man and umpire, had decided convictions on the Ibw rule. He stated that he would not give the decision in the bowler's favour to a delivery that swung into the batsman after pitching. Even if it ■was on the wicket no umpire in the world could deliberately say that the ball would have hit the wicket. A bowler in the category mentioned by Moss is Bruce Massey, of the Institute team. His in-swingers—of a good length and pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket—are certain to go past tho stumps on tho leg side, said Mr. M'Kenzie. Harold Monaghan, an old-time Wellington College and Old Boys player, was another. His swerves, unless they straightened up, which 1 they seldom did, would pass the batsmen's legs if pitched on the wickets. The lecturer added: "There is a left-handed bowler-in the AVellingfcon Club who occasionally plays senior. Invariably he appeals for tho Ibw when the ball from his delivery hits a batsman on the leg. Ho gels the decision many times —at least two of them on a recent Saturday afternoon —but . the umpire who answers these appeals in tho affirmative is not fair to the batsman. A good length ball from this bowler —left-hand round the wicket— has to break back at least twelve inches, a practical impossibility with the nature of his delivery. "Some umpires have a peculiar conception of this Ibw rule, and players know their weaknesses. Tor instance, a remark like this has been made: 'The big fellow is umpiring in our match to-day; if we make a combined appeal whonever the ball hits the batsman's

paids ho is bound to put his hand up.' This is probably not cricket, but it is one of the things an umpire has to guard against. REMINISCENT VEIN. "Many years ago, when umpires were hard to get, a good old cricket enthusiast did a turn one Saturday afternoon. 'How did you get on, Jim?' was a'remark I greeted him with. 'Not so bad; I gave three of them out Ibw.' 'Were they out?' 'It was their legs that stopped tho ball hitting their wickets.' "In a Canterbury-Wellington match some years ago I was an umpire at one end. Dan Beese was bowling—lefthand round the wickot—and Jack Mahony was the batsman. The ball pitched.between the off and the middle stumps, • and' Mahouy lunged forward in making his shot. Ho blanketed Ins wickets, and it looked a certainty that j the ball, in its flight, would hit him lon the body. Eeese was ready to ap- | peal. My hands had become inter--1 locked in readiness to lift the right one above my head—l generally clasp ! my hands together behind my back. Mahony was ready to leave for the pavilion: he had been beaten badly by the flight of the ball.. But the ball missed him by'the narrowest of mar- ; gins, and also went over the top of the ! wickets, grazing tho bails as it did so. That incident so impressed me _ that ever since the main point to me in deciding an Ibw appeal is, 'Would the ball have hit tho wicket?' "Just one other point.. The appeal is, 'How's that?' and the umpire's reply is either raising the right hand or shaking the head— £yes' or 'no.' Tho umpire is not bound to give an explanation of his decision, and in practice he should make it a rule not to give one. This applies to all decisions, whether they are for Ibw or otherwise. An explanation may give something on whjch an argument may follow, and if tho umpire can be placed in the wrong there are players in plenty who will be only too eager to put him there. To stand or fall by the decision itself is what I recommend in all sincerity to fellow umpires. In giving a decision, however, an umpire should be certain that the batsman understands it, and if he is leaving the wicket under a misconception he should be called back. "There is a trick with players that an umpire has to be on his guard against; Tho bowler is not sure whether.to appeal, so he looks inquiringly at the umpire. The least indication that an appeal is likely to succeed is bound to bring the 'How's that?' An umpire is the judge of fair or unfair play, but it is not part of his duty to hint that if an appeal is made he will allow it."