Ask the Laws Department XXVIV: (Blocking throws)

MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with The Wisden Cricketer. This edition discusses batsmen deliberately blocking off throws.

Batsmen often try to obstruct the path of a fielders throw There have been a few examples recently of batsmen deliberately changing their running path to get their bodies between the fielder’s throw and the stumps.

Somewhat surprisingly, the fielding side never seems to appeal when this happens yet there is always the possibility of the batsman being given out obstructing the field.

It appears that the practice has almost become accepted as part of the game and some commentators heap praise on batsmen who get their bodies between a throw and the stumps, often citing it as a brave act.

One commentator who takes a different view is the former England coach, Duncan Fletcher, who saw this happen while on Test Match Special. He said that deliberately to put yourself in the line between the thrower and the stumps is cheating.

A change of course, designed to block a throw in, is ‘wilful’ and ‘obstructs the fielding side’ - the two crucial points in Law 37.1. That states: "Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the fielding side by word or action."

A batsman altering course to block a throw in is therefore obstructing the fielding side. It happened a few times during England’s tour to Australia but there was never an appeal.

Assume that the bowling is right arm over the wicket to a right-handed batsman.

He plays the ball towards square leg and sets off for a quick single. Normally he would run down the off side of the pitch, with the nonstriker running down the leg side.

But mid-way through the run it is not uncommon to see the striker run across the pitch from the off side to the leg side, seemingly in an attempt to block a potential run-out at the non-striker’s end.

Preservation of his wicket is apparently more important than preservation of his body but, by running across the pitch, he puts himself at risk of being given out obstructing the field. Furthermore, he has caused avoidable damage to the pitch and is in breach of Law 42.14.

It should be stressed that the batsman does not have a duty to avoid a throw and is allowed to run on an accepted course, even if it involves a change of course to make a detour round the bowler or other fielder - and even if it inadvertently blocks a throw.

Taking the same circumstances as above but with the ball being hit to cover point, the striker could legally run down the off side, even if it meant that he was putting his body between the fielder and the stumps at the nonstriker’s end.

Under Law 37.2 the umpires are to decide whether any obstuction is willful or not. If an umpire (whose attention, it should be remembered, may mainly be focused elsewhere) feels that a batsman has significantly changed his direction, without a probable cause, and his body or bat then blocks a runout chance, he should, on appeal, give the batsman out under Law 37.1. It is not relevant whether he felt a run-out would have occurred or not.

To rub salt into the wound, if the running crosses the pitch, it should be considered as avoidable damage to the pitch and so it should count as one of the warnings to the batting side.

If it was not the first warning, any runs scored (except for a wide and no-ball) should be disallowed, five penalty runs should be awarded to the fielding side and the umpires should file a report after the game.

Ask the umpire - with MCC Laws sub-committee

James Anderson bowled two full-tosses over waist height in the same innings during the World Cup. Why was he not withdrawn from the attack?

- Chris Taylor, Telford

MCC says:

If the umpire considers that any fast, full-pitched ball over waist height was bowled intentionally, the bowler should be suspended immediately under Law 42.8. For accidental deliveries, under the Laws, the bowler receives two warnings, which last throughout the innings.

On a third instance of dangerous or unfair bowling, including fast, short-pitched balls, then the bowler is suspended (Laws 42.6 to 42.8). ICC’s conditions are more restrictive: the ball does not need to be 'fast' and the bowler has only one warning, as long as the umpire considers both balls likely to inflict physical injury.

In the Anderson incident the umpire considered that one of the balls was unlikely to inflict injury, so Anderson was not suspended.