Ask the Laws Department XXX: (Runners regulation change)

MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with The Cricketer magazine. This edition discusses the ICC's decision to ban runners from international cricket.

Three batsmen in the middle - a sight soon to become obsolete in international cricket The ICC has decided that, from October 1, runners will no longer be allowed in international cricket.

The main justifications given by ICC for the change were that bowlers are not permitted the equivalent of a runner and that it was difficult for umpires to judge the legitimacy of a batsman’s injury.

The issue of having a runner when the batsman has cramp seemed to provide the momentum for the change.

Initially, the ICC disallowed a runner in such circumstances but after advice from its Medical Committee, giving rise to a fair amount of criticism, it reversed its decision.

MCC has considered the matter and is strongly of the opinion that runners should be retained.

MCC will not be changing the Law and so, unless national boards or leagues decide to follow the ICC line, runners will continue to be allowed in all but international cricket.

MCC feels that not to allow a runner for an incapacitated batsman does not comply with the spirit of equity within the Laws.

If a bowler is incapacitated, another bowler can take over; if an incapacitated batsman is not permitted a runner, this effectively means the loss of his wicket, which is a disproportionate effect.

An injury to a batsman when a side was nine wickets down would result in the end of the innings or him having to struggle through, risking aggravating the injury.

MCC would not wish to see a batsman hobbling through the last few overs of a match to try to win it. Bowlers do not have to hobble – someone else can bowl for them. Critics of the runner Law often cite that cricket is the only sport which caters for an injured player.

In other sports an injury is simply bad luck, as in tennis for example, or a fully participating substitute may be used, as in football or rugby. MCC sees this as a positive aspect of cricket.

An injured player is given as much help as possible to continue playing the game within his capabilities. In the recent Test at Trent Bridge Graeme Swann damaged his left hand while batting.

He was still able to bowl, as he is right-handed. By the same rationale a batsman with an injured leg should still be able to bat, even though he cannot run. Zaheer Khan in the first England v India Test at Lord’s is a topical example.

Taking the “equity” argument further, if the ICC is saying that an injured batsman is not allowed a runner, surely it follows that an injured fielder should not be allowed a substitute?

This is already a Law that many feel is abused at international level, with substitutes often taking the place of players with no obvious signs of illness or injury.

The ICC recently tightened its regulations to clarify that a substitute would not be allowed on to the field to cover a “comfort break” and yet we seldom see only 10 men in the field. Judging by the complaints that

MCC receives on this issue, compared with those about runners, it would appear that the more widely abused area has not been tackled.

Ask the umpire - with MCC Laws sub-committee

The striker plays the ball to a fielder standing at short leg. The fielder takes it cleanly, so the batsman immediately reaches back to ensure that he is in his ground.

Unfortunately he drops his bat, which falls on the stumps. Is this hit wicket? Does it make any difference whether the fielder actually makes a runout attempt?

- Submitted by Andy Heard, via email

MCC says:

No, the striker would not be out hit wicket. Law 35 should be read in full but, in short, the striker is liable to be out this way while preparing to receive the delivery, while receiving the delivery or while setting off for a run immediately after receiving the delivery.

In this example the wicket is put down while the batsman is trying to avoid being run out. Law 35.2(c) expressly caters for this, stating that the striker will not be out hit wicket “if it occurs when he is trying to avoid being run out or stumped”.

Even if a run-out attempt is not actually made, the umpire would be able to see that the chance of a run-out existed and so the striker would still be protected.