BAN lose to SA Despite A DRS Reprieve for Mahmudullah
Update, June 12: I have corrected an error in one of my hypothetical examples below.
Perhaps many of you would prefer “BAN lose to SA after being denied Four Leg Byes”. The reason I don’t use that headline is that in Cricket as it currently exists, that headline would be incorrect.
Bangladesh weren’t denied four leg byes because the four leg byes didn’t exist at all. The ball was dead the moment it hit Mahmudullah’s pad once the umpire gave it out on the field.
Appendix D of the ICC’s Playing Conditions for the 2024 World Cup, which Bangladesh, South Africa and every other participating team agreed to play under state the following on p.84 [pdf]:
3.7.1 If following a Player Review request, an original decision of Out is changed to Not out, then the ball is still deemed to have become dead when the original decision was made (as per clause 20.1.1.3). The batting side, while benefiting from the reversal of the dismissal, shall not benefit from any runs that may subsequently have accrued from the delivery had the on-field umpire originally made a Not out decision, other than any No ball penalty that could arise under paragraph 3.3.5 above.
3.7.2 If an original decision of Not out is changed to Out, the ball shall retrospectively be deemed to have become dead from the moment of the dismissal event. All subsequent events, including any runs scored, shall be ignored.
Law 20.1.1.3 of the Dead Ball law (the most important law in cricket) states that “a batter is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.”
Sambit Bal, the editor of ESPNCricinfo holds the view that “The denial of runs for overturned lbw decisions ought to reconsidered, because it’s blatantly unfair. A simple tweak will do: umpires can just delay their decisions till the runs are completed”
The law does not depend on when the umpire makes the decision, but on “the instant of the incident causing the dismissal”. In the case of LBW, this instant is the instant when the ball hits the pad. Even if the umpire waited for the ball to cross the boundary, and then raised his finger, it would not change the substance of the decision. The ball would still be dead the moment it hit Mahmudullah’s pad.
What Bal is calling for (whether he realizes this or not) is not a simple tweak, but wholesale surgery to the entire structure of the game. If the timing of the umpires decision decides how much of a delivery counts, then consider the following situation. Suppose the bowler hits the batter on the pad and appeals for LBW. The ball rolls away near second slip. The batters scamper a quick single which they complete, in part because second slip, instead of fielding the ball, has been appealing. The umpire raises the finger as the batters are completing their run. Does this count as 1 leg bye plus one LBW dismissal? Or does it count as just one LBW dismissal? Under Bal’s system, it would count as 1 leg bye and 1 LBW dismissal.
If DRS was available in this match and the batter who had been on strike requests a review, and the Out decision is reversed then under Bal’s proposal, it would count as 1 leg bye only.
So under Bal’s proposal, should bowlers and fielders appeal? Or should they field the ball? And if they don’t appeal, then should the umpire give a decision despite there being no appeal? To do this would require changing the laws of cricket, because under the current law (Law 311), a batter is only dismissal under two circumstances: (a) if the batter walks and the umpire does not stop the batter, and (b) if the fielding side appeals and the batter gives it out.
For example, lets consider the following example. Suppose Baartman bowled Mahmudullah. The ball clipped the stumps and flew to the boundary. Mahmudullah walks, thinking he’s out. But the umpire stops him because he wants to check for a particular type of no-ball. It turns out that Baartman overstepped. Mahmudullah is asked by the umpire to continue his innings. The umpire then signals the no-ball and declares four byes. This would be the correct legal decision for this particular set of facts. Mahmudullah was not out bowled and was never given out bowled. So 20.1.1.3 never applied.
Consider a modified version of Baartman’s successful appeal against Mahmudullah. Suppose the Player Review showed that Baartman had overstepped. In this instance, the Out decision would be reversed, and four leg-byes would be declared a no-ball would be declared, and the delivery would have to be bowled again. The four leg byes would still not exist. This is because the no-ball occurred when the Baartman’s front foot landed just past the crease at the bowler’s end, which was before the “instant of the incident causing the dismissal”, but the events which occur after “the original decision was made” are not reinstated.
Let us suppose a situation in which reinstatement of the batter following a successful review was followed by the reinstatement of the rest of the delivery as Jarrod Kimber proposes. This would be as unfair to the bowling side as the apparent denial of four leg byes is considered to be for the batting side. There is no method of retrospective reinstatement which can prevent such unfairness to one side or the other in the event of a successful player review by a batter. For example, suppose the ball trickles for four leg byes. Under the normal circumstances, if the fielding side wasn’t appealing, but fielding, they would probably stop the ball before it crossed the boundary. But now, they concede four runs because they were doing something which the law requires them to do to get a dismissal - to ask for a dismissal.
Once you start thinking about making retrospective reinstatement fair, it begins to affect the existence of at least two cornerstone building blocks of the laws of cricket - the appeal and the dead ball. These laws create the structure which makes the rest of cricket what it is. To change these laws is to change the basic structure of how and when a delivery begins and ends and how dismissals occur. It is a fundamental change, not a minor tweak.
Hopefully, after reading this, readers will at least see that there isn’t a “simple tweak”, or a small localized modification to one clause in the Dead Ball law which will make the law both fair to both teams and preserve the basic structure of the laws of cricket.
The one viable change would be to get rid of the on-field umpires entirely. If a decision about runs, balls and wickets on each delivery is made exactly once, with no possibility of review, then the question of retrospective reinstatement will not arise. Let players play out the delivery, let them appeal, and then wait for umpires in a TV booth to give decisions. This will affect the 99% of cricket where DRS is unavailable, but it will satisfy the TV audience which finances much of the game. But until such time, it is no good saying that there’s some simple, minor, common sense tweak to the law which will make this fair. It may make it more favorable to one side, but that’s not fairness is it?
Law 31.1 states that “Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batter who is out under any of the Laws from leaving the wicket without an appeal having been made."
I think Bal's suggestion is neat, even if the language needs to consider one or two cases in order to become a concrete law. This article pokes holes in a one-liner from Bal, which does him a disservice since his intent was to propose an improvement as a journalist, not draft a clause for the rulebook as a lawmaker.
About the two objections you've raised - the dead ball law and the appeal law...
If the batsman is dismissed but the batters have already completed a run, the law can simply state that the run won't count as long as the appeal is withheld post review (if there is one). That the "ball would be considered dead on the moment of impact" if the impact eventually results in a dismissal.
The appeal point is an even bigger non-issue IMO.
"Should bowlers and fielders appeal? Or should they field the ball?" It is simply not that complicated. The person closest to the ball can field it while the others appeal. And the appeal doesn't have to last for 20 seconds. An audible howzzat can be uttered even while you're fielding the ball. Players would just have to be a little more aware. It's not a crazy difficult new skill to learn.
It has already happened on the cricket field that the keeper, *while appealing for LBW*, noticed that the batsman had ventured out of their crease, and effected a run out / stumping. It's pretty elementary mid-play awareness.
FWIW, the whole distinction between a "simple tweak" and a "fundamental change" doesn't mean much. A rule change is a rule change. The distinction you've made is personal to you - the MCC/ICC doesn't call any rules fundamental or minor. The book is written and amended all the time. And I hope this particular rule changes.
"as Jarrod Kimber proposes. This would be as unfair to the bowling side as the apparent denial of four leg byes is considered to be for the batting side. There is no method of retrospective reinstatement which can prevent such unfairness to one side or the other in the event of a successful player review by a batter. For example, suppose the ball trickles for four leg byes. Under the normal circumstances, if the fielding side wasn’t appealing, but fielding, they would probably stop the ball before it crossed the boundary. But now, they concede four runs because they were doing something which the law requires them to do to get a dismissal - to ask for a dismissal."
The fielding side is aware of the possibility of an appeal not being given and consequently needing to field the ball because it stays in play. There might be slight change in the manner of appeal where some of the players field while others appeal. This already happens when fielding team is not entirely confident with their appeal.