NOT OUT

Thames Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 19637, 19 February 1936, Page 3

NOT OUT

BATSMAN LEAVES WICKET UMPIRE UNABLE TO RECALL HIM An unusual incident in the first grade cricket match between Central Cumberland and Randwick at Lidcombe Oval on Saturday caused keen discussion on the point that it is not part of an umpire's duty to recall a batsman who leaves the wicket in the mistaken belief that he has been dismissed. The Central Cumberland batsman, N. Howell, hit a ball, which was taken by a fieldsman, and Howell, believing that he had been caught, departed to the pavilion. There had not been any appeal. Howell was replaced by the next batsman. It was later ascertained that the ball had hit the ground before being taken by the fieldsman. Howell would not have been given out. The umpires, however, were not in a position to inform him that he had not been caught and to recall him. The opinion was expressed by several officials and players who entered into the discussions that it is not "cricket" that an umpire should be forced to allow a player to depart under such a misapprehension. It was pointed out that the onus is on the batsman to wait for an appeal should he be in doubt, but it is not customary for a batsman to wait for an appeal should be consider he has been oaught. There have been some cases in big cricket where a batsman has retired under the erroneous impression that he has been dismissed. It is understood that in the case of the "dismissal" of a certain batsman in a test match at Sydney in 1932-33, the player would not have been given out had he waited for an appeal instead of retiring of his own accord.