Ask the Laws Department: XVII (Time wasting)

MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with Wisden Cricketer. The seventeenth issue considers time wasting.

Ready or not...

Irksome habits: Trott annoyed the South Africa team Jonathan Trott’s routine before facing each ball has come under a lot of scrutiny and led to complaints from the South African side during the recent Test series.

The routine includes marking his guard with his bat and his foot and there were several occasions when he was not ready to face once the bowler was at the end of his mark.

At a time when over-rates are thought by many to be slow enough anyway, the South Africans were not happy
with what they considered to be time-wasting. However, no formal warnings appeared to be issued to Trott by the umpires.

Law 42.10 states: "It is unfair for a batsman to waste time. In normal circumstances the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to start his run up."

If the umpires feel that the Law has been breached, a first and final warning is given to the batting side.

This warning applies to the entire team, not just to the batsman that caused the offence and so the umpires should inform each incoming batsman that a warning has already been received.

For each further incident of time wasting by the batting side, five penalty runs are awarded to the fielding side and the umpires should report the incident to the executive of the batting side and the governing body responsible for the match.

The umpires must take all circumstances into account before deciding whether the time wasting by the batsman is unfair.

A fly buzzing round the striker’s head, something getting in his eye or shoelaces becoming untied are examples of reasonable reasons for a batsman not being ready, unless they are repeated to such an extent that the umpire suspects time-wasting tactics.

Repeatedly marking a guard or having an extravagent pre-ball routine must not delay the bowler. If it does, the umpire should invoke the warning procedure under Law 42.10.

A batsman 'should be ready to face once the bowler is ready to start his run up' A batsman may keep the bowler waiting while he takes guard at each end for the first time in his innings but, thereafter, he should be ready to face once the bowler is ready to start his run up.

Some bowlers like to try to rush through their overs and umpires should be wary of batsmen trying to slow the rate down.

If a bowler normally has, for example, a 20 yard run-up but while walking back to his mark decides to turn and run in off only five yards, it would be forgiveable if the batsman is not ready as he would have anticipated a longer pause.

If the tactic is regularly used by the bowler, the batsman should be made aware of it and must try to be ready.

The umpire will have a feel for events and the context of the game and must try to distinguish between a batsman genuinely not ready and one trying to waste time.

Ask the umpire
- with MCC Laws sub-committee

"A batsman either strikes or is struck by the ball, which then rolls back towards the stumps. Seeing this, the striker places his hand on top of the bails to prevent the wicket being broken. Is the batsman out and, if so, under which law?"

MCC says:

The batsman should be given out under Law 37 (Obstructing the field). It is a clear example of an action by the striker, which obstructs the field.

Without the action, the striker would have been out
bowled. It would be wrong for him not to be punished.

The legitimate way for him to have dealt with this situation would have been to strike the ball a second time to defend his wicket.