A Rare Incident In Cricket—Caught Off Second Stroke—Where An Umpire Erred

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7412, 20 December 1930, Page 19

A Rare Incident In Cricket —Caught Off Second Stroke —Where An Umpire Erred

ITTLE things are often of more moment in cricket than they are in other games. Interpretations of fine points of Rugby football laws may sometimes be of no importance, for incidents to which they are applicable may occur so rarely, and have so little effect on the ultimate result of a match, that they are not worth bothering about. All minor points in the interpretation of Rugby laws do not fall into that category, but it is, I think, indisputable that many Rugby referees spend a lot of time in arguing over little things that do not matter. On the other hand, an umpire’s knowledge or ignorance of a rarcly-applicable interpretation of a law of cricket may have a definite bearing on the result of a match. If, through ignorance of an official interpretation of a rule, an umpire makes _ a mistake that causes a batsman to be dismissed, he places the batting side under a handicap that cannot be recovered, although the full extent to which the handicap operates is not assessable, because the batsman’s capacity for making runs in the circumstances prevailing cannot be estimated.

Chance may give some compensation for such an umpiring error as_ a misapplication of the Ibw rule—which is not uncommon —for the umpire who makes such a mistake against one side in a match may also make it against the other. But the laws of chance are very much against the possibility of an erroneous decision on a very rare point being compensated for in the other side’s innings. This is, of course, one of the hazards that help to make cricket so uncertain and, therefore, so interesting to the spectator as well as the player.

AN incident of an exceedingly rare kind happened in the first-grade match between West Christchurch and St. Albans, a few days ago. It is not unique—that word is used here in its true sense—and the Marylebone Cricket Club, which is the ultimate authority on the laws of the game, has had occasion to give a ruling on the point involved. However, it is so unusual that very few players have ever seen a happening of the kind. Moreover, it came at a momentous part of the game, the batsman concerned having gone in when four wickets had fallen for 34 runs, and having started his innings as though he would stop the rot which had permeated the West Christchurch batting, and which was not stopped until some little time later. The point is also of special interest because it is not covered clearly by the laws of game in the form in which they are known to most players who possess copies of them. The batsman concerned was M. C. Ward, who started by scoring a four. Then his partner, F. A. Jarrett, played a ball from J. Fraser on to the ground, whence it went on to the stumps, making five wickets down for 38 runs. Ward then played another of Fraser’s late inswdngers hard on to the ground between the popping crease and the stumps. As the ball rebounded upward he poked at it with the end of his bat, to keep it off the stumps, but poked it into, the hands of N. Dorreen, the St. Albans wicketkeeper. Dorrecn was not certain that it was a catch within the meaning of the laws, but he appealed, to be on the safe side, and his appeal was allowed by the umpire at the bowler’s wicket. So Ward had to go, disconsolately, back to the pavilion.

THE umpire was wrong, but he need not be criticised -harshly. Anyone who knew the laws of the game only as they appear in Wisden’s Cricketers’ Almanack,” for example, and who had to decide the question on the spur of the moment, probably would have given Ward out. Still, organised umpires are presumed to have made a study of the M.C.C. interpretations of the laws issued in booklet form. Under law 22, a batsman is out “if the ball, from a stroke of the bat or hand, but not the wrist, be held before it touch the ground, although it be hugged to the body of the catcher.” In the incident now discussed, the ball struck the ground before it was held, but a second stroke then made contact with the ball, and the question that arose was whether or not the fact that the ball struck the ground between the two strokes nullified the subsequent catch. The M.C.C. rules that the catch is nullified if the ball has touched the ground after the first stroke. Here is the M.C.C. ruling:— When a batsman plays a ball on to the ground, and in order to prevent it hitting the wicket, after touching the ground, he strikes it again, and the ball is caught, the ' batsman is not out. But if he hit the ball a second time before it touches the ground, and is caught, he would be out under this law. If the umpire was not certain what the ruling was he should have given the batsman the benefit of the doubt, since it was not a case in which he was justified in appealing to the other umpire unless he could not see the ball touch the ground between the two strokes.

If Ward had struck the ball a second time for the purpose of scoring off it he would have been out, “hit the ball twice,” but there was no question of that in this instance. A.L.C.