Ask the Laws Department: XIII (Replacements)
MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with Wisden Cricketer. The thirteenth issue considers replacement fielders.
Replacement therapy
Download a free Andrew Strauss, Spirit of Cricket desktop wallpaper After the first two Ashes Test matches there was a lot of debate about the Spirit of Cricket in the series, so it was pleasing that Andrew Strauss allowed a replacement to play in the Australian side in the third Test at Edgbaston.
Australia’s firstchoice wicketkeeper, Brad Haddin, broke a finger in the 30 minutes between toss and start of play.
Their captain, Ricky Ponting, had nominated the players in writing before the toss, so a replacement could be allowed only with the England captain’s consent.
It was particularly relevant that the injured player was a
wicketkeeper. A replacement player is very different from a
substitute.
A replacement may take a full part in the game but a substitute, which would have been needed if the request was turned down, may not bat, bowl or act as wicketkeeper or captain.
Strauss would have been within his rights under Law 1.2 to refuse Ponting’s request, which would have meant that one of the 10 remaining players had to keep wicket and that Australia batted with only 10 men - a significant advantage to England in a five-day game.
Sore point: Haddin and his injured finger But, in a move lauded by everyone, Strauss chose to allow the request, meaning that Graham Manou made his Test debut and could keep wicket.
It should be noted that, while the opposition captain has the sole authority to grant a replacement player, the use of a substitute is solely at the discretion of the umpires and, acting within the limitation of the Laws, the opposing captain has no involvement in this matter.
In relation to the amateur game MCC is often asked what should happen when a nominated player is late arriving at a game.
Questions include whether a late arrival may bowl immediately if he has missed, say, 10 overs in the field or whether a really late player, who arrives during the interval between innings, may open the batting having missed the entire fielding session.
The Laws are different here in relation to batsmen and bowlers. Law 2.5 covers the position for bowlers and should be read in full.
In short, the time-scale before being allowed to bowl for a person who fails to take the field at the start of the match is the same as for a player who leaves the field during a session of play or after an interval.
If he is absent for 15 minutes or longer, he shall not be permitted to bowl until he has been on the field for the
length of playing time for which he was absent.
A batsman is allowed to bat whenever he wants under the Laws.
So, in the example given above, he could be stuck in traffic for the entire innings in the field, arrive in time for a cup of tea and a slice of cake, then go out to open the batting.
But the playing conditions in most professional cricket forbid this and place a time limit which mirrors those for bowling, with the added proviso that he may bat once his side has lost five wickets, if this occurs earlier.
Ask the umpire
- with MCC Laws sub-committee
"I was batting with a runner and the wicketkeeper was standing back. After I missed the ball the wicketkeeper threw the ball at the stumps. I was still within my ground but my runner had 'backed up' and strayed out of his (and my) ground at square leg.
"I was given out, rightly I feel, but there was confusion as to whether I should have been out stumped or run out. Can you help?"
MCC says:
You should have been given out Run out. Law 39.1(a)(i) states: "The striker is out Stumped if he is out of his ground." The runner is a batsman "out of his ground when the wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side," so the runner is out run out, meaning the striker is too.
