Ask the Laws Department XXVII: (Run out clarification)
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 2010 rule change to the run out law.
Vettori departs after being dismissed against England A running batsman flying into the crease, over the line but in the air, the stumps are broken - what happens next? Daniel Vettori suffered something like this in the second Test against England in 2008 and kicked himself for the error: he should have run his bat in - but was there a sense of injustice?
Law 29.1 about a running batsman being out of his ground was amended in October, causing confusion. The Law now reads:
29.1(a) A batsman shall be considered to be out of his ground unless his bat or some part of his person is grounded behind the popping crease at that end.
29.1(b) Notwithstanding (a) above, if a running batsman, having grounded some part of his foot behind the popping crease, continues running further towards the wicket at that end and beyond, then any subsequent total loss of contact with the ground of both his person and his bat during his continuing forward momentum shall not be interpreted as being out of his ground.
Sub-section (a) has not changed from previous editions. But, partly as a result of the increased use of technology, MCC felt it sensible to give some protection to a running batsman who is clearly in but who may be airborne when the wicket is put down, hence the new sub-section (b).
It is in the nature of running that, at times, both feet are simultaneously off the ground. MCC felt it would be unjust for a batsman to be given out purely because his feet were both airborne when the wicket was put down. MCC felt that the protection should be offered only to a batsman who was comfortably in, rather than one who had only just made his ground.
Consequently, it was agreed that the grounding of some part of his foot behind the popping crease was a reasonable compromise. Sub-section (b) deliberately refers to a 'running' batsman, to clarify that this section is only relevant for run-outs and not for stumpings.
Consideration was given to a diving batsman and whether he should be deemed to be safe if his bat was initially grounded beyond the popping crease but then tipped up and lost contact. It was felt he should not be afforded additional protection.
In the majority of matches, umpires would not give a batsman out if they saw his foot had already been grounded behind the popping crease even if they knew that his bat had become airborne.
It would not be possible to be certain that neither foot was grounded at the instant the wicket was put down. With slow-motion replays and the use of the third umpire, that doubt would be removed and both feet could be shown to be airborne. It is hoped that the new Law provides some natural justice even if it is almost solely used by TV umpires rather than on the village green.
Ask the umpire - with MCC Laws sub-committee
"Thinking about the Hampshire v Somerset last-ball debacle, would it have been permitted for the umpires to have reminded the players of the implications of the Laws, prior to the delivery?"
- Submitted by Andy Heard
MCC says:
There is nothing in Law preventing the umpires from explaining the Laws and their consequences to the players, except the over-riding imperative of impartiality. If, taking into account the likelihood of confusion and the experience of the players, they feel it is sensible to offer clarification, it should be given both to the batsmen and the captain of the fielding side.
Umpires should never offer advice solely to one team. At first-class level there should not be a need to remind players of the Laws relating to a runner but an under-11s game might well need clarification. Offering advice solely to one team should be avoided.
Consultations are sometimes made at the end of a limited-overs game to clarify who wins if scores are level. It is good field-craft to ensure everyone is aware of particular Laws or regulations.
