Ask the Laws Department: XV (Spirit of Cricket)
MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with Wisden Cricketer. The fifteenth issue considers the Spirit of Cricket.
Should he stay or should he go?
The Spirit of Cricket came into sharp focus during the ICC Champions Trophy in South Africa in September.
There were two games, both involving England, where players and commentators were looking more towards the spirit than the Laws for guidance on the ‘correct’ decision.
The Spirit of Cricket was, until 2000, an unwritten code of fair play.
In 2000 MCC formally enshrined the Spirit of Cricket by
attempting to define it in a preamble to the Laws.
The Preamble places the onus on the captains to ensure that the spirit of fair play is upheld and cites various examples of unfair play, including disputing an umpire’s decision, verbally or physically abusing an opponent or umpire or cheating in any way.
Respect is also important in the Preamble, which encourages respect not only for opponents and umpires but also for the game’s traditional values.
The two incidents involved run-outs, both of which had a connection with the run-out of New Zealand’s Grant Elliott at
The Oval last year, where Paul Collingwood refused to withdraw the appeal after Elliott collided with the bowler, Ryan Sidebottom.
Download a free Andrew Strauss, Spirit of Cricket desktop wallpaper The first was in Johannesburg when Andrew Strauss, captain of the fielding side, recalled Sri Lanka’s Angelo Mathews, after Mathews was run out following a collision with the bowler Graham Onions.
Many felt that Strauss was generous; Mathews ran into Onions as he was not looking where he was going.
But, perhaps aware of the furore that followed Collingwood’s decision last year, Strauss was cautious and asked the umpire if he could withdraw the appeal as is his right under Law 27.8.
The second incident, in a twist of fate, involved Collingwood batting against New Zealand, also at Johannesburg.
He left the sixth ball of an over and 'keeper Brendon McCullum took it. Collingwood, assuming the umpire would instantly call ‘over’, left his crease for a conference
with his partner.
McCullum threw down the stumps, Collingwood was out of his ground and there was an appeal.
The umpire at the bowler’s end confirmed he had not called ‘over’ when the wicket was put down. If ‘over’ had been called, the ball would be dead and Collingwood would not have been out.
The ball could not be regarded as having been finally settled in the wicketkeeper’s gloves as McCullum had thrown immediately after he’d taken it.
Download a free Daniel Vettori, Spirit of Cricket desktop wallpaper The umpires confirmed with Daniel Vettori, captain of the fielding side, that they would give Collingwood out on appeal but left it to Vettori to decide whether he wished to continue with the appeal.
Given it was Collingwood, the fielding side could have been keen for retribution. But Vettori took the better option in terms of upholding the spirit of the game and withdrew the appeal.
In each case the batsmen was out under the Laws but given a reprieve because the fielding captain did not believe it was fair that the batsman should be dismissed.
Many agreed with the captains while others felt a more hard-nosed approach would not have been unreasonable.
There is strictly no ‘right’ answer.
Ask the umpire
- with MCC Laws sub-committee
"We were playing a game and the captains had agreed that one drinks interval would be taken in each innings.
"During the second innings the fielding side said they did not want drinks (we were eight wickets down and rain was on the way) as they did not want to waste time but my team wanted to have drinks.
"The umpires allowed us to stop for a drinks break but after the game the captain of the fielding side said it is up to the fielding side to decide whether or not to stop for drinks. Who was right?"
MCC says:
The umpires were right. Law 15.9(b)(i) states: "Unless both captains agree to forgo any drinks interval, it shall be taken at the end of the over in progress when the agreed time is reached."
