Ask the Laws Department XXV: (Runners)

MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with The Wisden Cricketer. This edition clarifies the rules surrounding runners.

Run out's are a regular occurrence when a runner is involved Calls such as 'there’s a run-out coming here' or 'this will be chaos, lads' often greet a player as he arrives in the middle to run for an injured team-mate.

The last ball of the 2010 Friends Provident Twenty20 final at the Rose Bowl produced such chaos but illustrated how a sound understanding of the Laws can be a real advantage.

On the penultimate delivery the Hampshire batsman Dan Christian pulled a muscle and needed a runner for the final ball. The Laws allowed this as the injury had occurred during the match.

A chaotic few minutes passed during which Christian received treatment, a runner walked to the middle and the groundsman painted additional crease markings square of the pitch.

Hampshire required two runs from the last ball to win outright but knew they would also win if the scores were level because they had lost fewer wickets. (At the time Hampshire had lost five to Somerset’s six.)

The injured batsman, Christian, was on strike, his runner positioned at square leg and the non-striker in the conventional position at the bowler’s end. The ball hit Christian on the pads and all three Hampshire players set off for a run, including Christian, who later claimed that he simply ran out of habit.

The ball evaded the infield, allowing all three Hampshire players (injured striker, non-striker and runner) to finish at the end opposite where they had started. There followed a confusing few seconds when nobody seemed sure who had won.

With a stalemate ensuing, the decision the umpires had to make was at what point the ball became dead since the injured striker was out of his ground.

The relevant part of the Dead Ball Law, 23.1(b), states: "The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the umpire at the bowler’s end that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it in play."

If only Somerset’s fielders had known the Laws, they could have won the competition and received significantly more prize money.

Law 2.8(c) states: "When a batsman with a runner is striker he remains himself subject to the Laws and will be liable to the penalties that any infringement of them demands. Additionally, if he is out of his ground when the wicket is put down at the wicket-keeper’s end, he will be out in the circumstances of Law 38 (Run out) or Law 39 (Stumped) irrespective of the position of the non-striker or of the runner. If he is thus dismissed, runs completed by the runner and the other batsman before the dismissal shall not be scored."

Law 29.2(e) clarifies which is the injured striker’s ground: "When a batsman with a runner is striker, his ground is always that at the wicket-keeper’s end."

Returning to the game at the Rose Bowl, a Somerset fielder simply needed to put the wicket down at the wicket-keeper’s end. If he had done so, Christian would have been run out and no runs would have been scored.

After the game the legitimacy of the run was questioned. The umpires were correct to credit the run to the batting side.

Both the runner and the non-striker had completed a run. Any runs they complete must count unless there is a subsequent run-out of the injured striker at the wicket-keeper’s end.

As no such run-out was attempted, even after the umpires deliberately paused before calling time, the run counted.

There are occasions when both batsmen require runners. The same principles apply but the chances of confusion and a run-out are dramatically increased.

Ask the umpire - with MCC Laws sub-committee

Sehwag: 'Denied' a century "In a recent ODI in Sri Lanka why was Virender Sehwag denied a century? He was on 99 when the scores were level. The bowler bowled a no-ball, which Sehwag hit for six.

"However, the umpires said the six runs did not count, as the run from the no-ball completed the match. Is this correct?

- Submitted by many Indian fans

MCC says:

The umpires were indeed correct. Law 21.6 states: "As soon as a result is reached - the match is at an end. Nothing that happens thereafter, except as in Law 42.17(b) (Penalty runs), shall be regarded as part of it."

Furthermore, Law 24.12 states: "A penalty of one run shall be awarded instantly on the call of no-ball." Consequently the match had finished by the time Sehwag hit the ball.