LarvalStageUmpire League, Beddington, Walcountians, Addiscombe

Beddington 5th XI vs Addiscombe, 2022-08-06

40/40 game, Beddington won the toss and chose to field. Addiscombe 255/7, Beddington 201/6 – scorecard

Addiscombe provided an umpire for this game, who was also keeping score on a fancy computer-machine so the scorecard (linked above) has ball-by-ball stats. Very posh, and also meant that I could alternate standing behind the wicket and out at square leg as is right and proper. It was a hot sunny day, mitigated by a breeze throughout the game. The out field was scorched dry and brown, but the square had been watered and was green, although the wicket we were using was brown, firm and dry, becoming dusty as the game progressed. It didn’t break up as much as I expected. The bone dry out field was fast, with a short boundary on one side and while the other side was much longer it was also substantially down hill, so we were in for a quite high scoring game.

Beddington’s first over with the ball went for 12, as the bowler struggled to find his length and release point. Of those 12, 6 were off no-balls and 1 a wide. Those warm-up flubs aside, he bowled well, going for an average of 4.2 an over which is respectable especially given the fast out field. Beddington’s problem wasn’t the bowling (even if, as you would expect at this level, there were bad balls a-plenty), but the fielding. Too many balls went past the fielders and once past were hopeless chases on the fast field which went to the boundary. Two of Addiscombe’s batsmen made well-deserved half-centuries, and another was one run short at the end of the innings.

With the bat, Beddington got off to an excellent start, with ten off the first over, but they couldn’t keep up with the required run rate mostly due to Addiscombe’s more effective fielding. It became clear that the game wasn’t realistically winnable but the league rules still incentivise teams to play positive cricket by offering bonus points. In particular there are bonus points for reaching 200 runs, which was achieved with two balls to go.

I’m afraid that I think I made a serious mistake in this game, giving one of Beddington’s batsmen out LBW incorrectly. The ball pitched outside off, hit him in line, I thought it was going to go on to just hit leg stump, so I gave him out. He wasn’t happy, but then, batsmen never are. After some muttering and grumbling he went off. However, discussing it afterwards it seems he had come further forward than I thought, and so after hitting him the ball would have missed the stumps.

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington, Beddington Park, League, Woodmansterne

Beddington 4th XI vs Woodmansterne, 2022-06-18

40/40 game, Beddington won the toss and chose to field. Woodmansterne 162/7, Beddington 131 from 38.5 overs – scorecard

I was accompanied throughout by players standing at square leg. After a brief heat wave during the week the Saturday was blessedly cooler. Still warm, but not sweltering, and with cloud cover and a gusty breeze. There were a few brief showers and at one point I thought “if this keeps getting heavier we might have to go off” mostly because the clouds were so thick it was getting dark, but thankfully we didn’t lose any overs and could play straight through without any breaks.

I thought that choosing to bowl first was the right decision, but the ball didn’t co-operate. For the first few overs the ball didn’t do anything, either in the air or off the pitch. The moment it started to deviate Beddington took their first wicket, and then the second in the next over. Things were looking good for Beddington, as the run rate at that point was kept a hair below 3 per over. Alas, it didn’t last. There was no batting collapse, and the efficient bowling came to an end. A single terribly expensive over took the total run rate up to 4 per over, where it then stayed pretty consistently. Then, within five overs from 21 to 25, three wickets fell, and I wondered if the run rate wouldn’t matter as it wouldn’t last long enough. But the last partnership, consisting of batsmen number 6 and 9, was especially productive. You expect that in that situation number 6 would make most of the runs, with number 9 facing few balls and mostly being careful to avoid run-outs, but they both kept the score ticking along. Coming in to bat just a couple of overs apart, they between them added almost 60 to the score. Beddington would have to bat well to chase down the total of 162.

Beddington’s innings started very well. The opening batsman had started the season in the 2nds and 3rds, although not scoring highly, and was one of the more productive players in his games for Beddington’s T20 side. His batting was decent, but what really impressed me was his running. He was fast, but also read the fielders and called well. None of the runs he called for seemed dangerous or lucky. The only problem was that all the running knackered his opening partner. But an opening partnership of 56 from 16 overs is very respectable and put Beddington on a good course towards victory. Alas, there was a teensy-weensy batting collapse. The first four wickets fell in quick succession with the score only advancing by five runs in seven overs. Beddington’s remaining batsmen could never score fast enough from that point on.

I was pleased with my performance although a couple of the players weren’t. I gave one out LBW even though he had taken guard on leg stump and the ball came off his arse. Somehow he managed to get himself turned round and low enough that his backside prevented him from being bowled at the top of leg stump. Another I decided wasn’t out caught behind despite there being a very loud noise as the ball went past him to the keeper. But the bat wasn’t anywhere near the ball at the time and I saw it clearly come off the batsman’s hip. The keeper reflexively appealed, of course, but was content with my decision. However, one of his colleagues in the field kept going on about the noise we’d all heard, and every time someone got bat on ball would moan about it sounding exactly the same. This went on for a couple of overs and I started to think about asking his captain to make him stop – but before I did so his captain took the initiative and shut him up anyway. The fielder was right in one respect – it did sound rather like bat on ball, and from his position maybe he couldn’t see exactly what happened, but his wicket-keeper agreed with me that the bat had been nowhere near. I can only assume that the batsman has a particularly resonant femur.

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington, Beddington Park, League, Purley

Beddington 4th XI vs Purley, 2022-06-04

40/40 game, Beddington won the toss and chose to field. Purley 125/9. Beddington 126/2 from 24 overs – scorecard

I was accompanied throughout by player-umpires, so took the bowler’s end duties for the whole game and had plenty of decisions to make. While I too would have chosen to field if I were captain, I don’t think it actually made much difference in the end. The pitch didn’t do much and while the occasional ball swung nothing went very far, and there was little deviation from the surface, although when it did turn there were wickets to be had.

Purley’s opening batsmen played solidly but scored slowly, so while the first wicket didn’t fall until the tenth over, the score was by then only 32, which I thought was a bit behind par – not, of course, that you can really tell until both teams have had a chance to bat, but I thought it anyway. And by the drinks break on 20 overs, the score had only trickled on to 50 for the loss of another wicket. The scoring was a bit quicker in the second half of Purley’s innings but was never fast, and with wickets falling steadily they left themselves with a lot of work to do.

Beddington’s innings started slowly, and I wondered if it was just going to be one of those slow low-scoring days with a tight finish, but that turned out to just be because Purley had two very good opening bowlers who were efficient even if they only took one wicket between them. One, the captain, only conceded 11 runs from his six overs. Unfortunately at that point the captain had to leave the field, leaving them a man down, and the other opening bowler had to stop at that point due to the limits the ECB imposes on young fast bowlers to prevent their arms falling off. No-one remembered to bring him back into the attack when he was eligible to return. The rest of Purley’s bowling attack was rather more leaky of runs, and even ignoring the one-off which went for 21 runs (that bowler only cost a rather more respectable 5 in his second over, but even so it was also his last) the pace more than doubled. With the score on 113 – so only 13 required to win – and an average of 7 runs per over being scored, I asked the scorer and his lovely assistants to start updating the scoreboard every ball, which surprised some people. I’m not sure why, as the rate the batsmen were going they could easily finish the game within the next over. As it was, they took three overs for those 13 runs. If only those last bowlers had come on a bit earlier in the innings perhaps there would have been more of a fighting chance!

I had no really difficult decisions to make but I did give an unusual no-ball. One of Purley’s bowlers was very slow and eventually one of his balls juuuust hit the ground a second time before the batsman got to it.

One of the gentlemen who stood at square leg pointed out to me during one of our inter-over chats that when I move out from behind the stumps to get square of the wicket ready to judge any run outs, I almost always move to the opposite side from that which the ball has gone. I’m not sure whether this is best practice or not. I started doing that so that I can see where the ball is, meaning that I won’t obstruct a throw towards the stumps, and also when the ball arrives I’m already expecting it and it doesn’t just suddenly appear in my view, which all sounds very reasonable. However, watching TV highlights of the first Test afterwards, I was looking out for it and … the pros do the opposite – they generally move towards the same side that the ball went. I suppose they know best, but I’m not sure why that is best. I shall give it some consideration, but any input from my esteemed readers would be most welcome.

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington, League, Trinity Mid-Whits, Trinity Mid-Whits

Trinity Mid-Whitgiftian vs Beddington 4th XI, 2022-05-14

40/40 game, Mid-Whits won the toss and chose to field. Beddington 93 from 35.3 overs. Mid-Whits 94/4 from 22.1 overs – scorecard

I won’t go into much detail on this game, in which – glory be! – Mid-Whits supplied an umpire too, so I alternated the bowler’s end and square leg as the Lord intended. Why no details? Mostly because I’ve been very naughty and waited too long to write it up and many of the details have evaporated from my tiny little mind. However, two incidents stand out, both while I was at the bowler’s end.

First, during Beddington’s innings, there was a loud appeal for caught behind. I was unmoved. While the ball did definitely end up in the keeper’s gloves, I thought that the noise I’d heard as it went through was the bat hitting the ground, not the ball. However, the ball was of course still in play, and the keeper was right up close to the wicket. The batsman stepped out of his ground and was promptly stumped, and given out by my colleague at square leg. An almighty row ensued, the batsman was insistent that because I had not said he was out caught, he wasn’t out. He insisted that the ball had been dead and therefore he couldn’t be stumped. My colleague explained why he was out, asked me if I was OK with that and I confirmed that I was, that I didn’t think the ball had been dead. Eventually he stomped his way off, grumbling all the way.

But this does raise an interesting question. When is the ball dead? Law 20 covers this, specifically clause 20.1.1.1(.1.1.1 – I think this is one of those things like banananana or queueueue where no-one is sure when it ends). The ball becomes dead when “it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler“. A question then arises – and is apparently asked in every umpiring course, I know it certainly was in the one I attended – what does “finally settled” mean? Clause 20.1.2 attempts to clarify: “The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play” – or as we were told on the training day, when the batsmen are no longer trying to score and the fielders aren’t trying to get them out. The wicket-keeper clearly thought it was still in play and only if nothing had happened in the next moments would the ball have become dead.

In this particular case it was the last ball of the over, so when I thought the ball was dead I would have called “over”, but in normal play it is never mentioned, although I have once, in abnormal play called and signalled dead ball. Players may have noticed that I am slower to call “over” than they sometimes expect. That’s because I am waiting for the ball to be clearly dead. If the batsman had waited a few more seconds before wandering off down the pitch to talk to his mate I would have called “over” and he would have been safe.

This set the game up to be rather unfriendly, but thankfully that didn’t last and everyone had a beer at Mid-Whits after the game – although the batsman still insisted he wasn’t out, and the keeper still insisted that he was out caught, and they no doubt will take this to their graves, both thinking that all umpires are bastards out to get them.

The second incident was rather less fraught. There was another confident appeal on the very first ball of Mid-Whits’ innings, again for caught behind. Judging from the appeal – it was immediate and absolutely unanimous – and also from seeing a great many deliveries from the bowler responsible, it probably was indeed caught behind. But I can’t give someone out just on a confident appeal and a good bowler. I didn’t hear the ball hit the bat, nor did I see it. And I didn’t see it because the bowler was in between me and the batsman. The lucky batsman, who eventually went on to make 23 before being caught off the very same bowler, should offer a prayer to his guardian angel for that!

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington, Croydon, League, Walcountians

Beddington 5th XI vs Croydon, 2022-05-07

40/40 game. Beddington chose to field. Croydon 167 from 39 overs, Beddington 150/6 – scorecard

Instead of my normal league fixture of the Beddington 4th XI I was given the choice of the 3rds or the 5ths, and took the 5ths match because it wasn’t so far to drive and so more convenient for my evening beerage plans. Many of Croydon’s players were late turning up so they forfeited the toss. Beddington chose to field, which I think was the right decision. It was the sporting decision, not batting against half a team of fielders, but the conditions favoured bowling first as well. It was overcast and humid, and there had been a little rain overnight. The pitch had scattered green patches. The captains agreed that Croydon would provide someone to umpire at the bowler’s end throughout their innings, and that I would stand at the bowler’s end throughout Beddington’s innings. A bit odd, but I’m OK with it. Aside from player safety – stopping play when it’s too wet for example – the umpires’ role is mainly to assist the teams in having their game, and if that’s how they’d like us to assist, that’s how I’ll assist.

And most importantly, cricket teas are back! We’ve had two seasons without, but now that life is pretty much back to normal after the Plague Times the league has decreed that the home team must provide tea again.

Spending a whole innings at square leg meant that I mostly just had to assist my colleague with a few no-ball calls for height, and adjudicate run outs. One I didn’t give because, while I thought it might have been out it was too close for me to be sure – I’d have sent it upstairs to the TV umpire if we had such luxuries. One I gave out. One of Croydon’s openers was dismissed quickly, in the third over with the score on 15, and his replacement was off quickly just two overs later. But their remaining opener and the number 4 batsman steadied the ship and put on almost 50 between them, scoring a steady almost-4 an over. While wickets fell steadily from that point on, I always felt that Croydon were scoring well, and their final score of 167 looked like it would be tough to beat.

During Beddington’s innings the clouds overhead started to clear and by the end it was a lovely sunny evening. Beddington also lost an opener early, and while the other opener didn’t hang around for as long as Croydon’s, Beddington defended their wickets better and at least to start with were keeping up with the required run rate, so it looked as if a win might be on the cards. But where Croydon had started to accelerate a few overs before the drinks break Beddington did not. With five overs left to play they were 20 behind where Croydon had been at the same stage of their innings, and with a couple of overs to go it was obvious that the win wasn’t achievable. However, in the league there are bonus points for scoring 150 runs, and that was achieved on the last ball of the day. Two of Beddington’s young players really stood out for me with the bat. One, a reluctant opener, scored a respectable 20. The other didn’t score much, but he stayed at the crease for a long time and kept his cool with no flailing at the ball. A good cricket temperament!

I was mostly pleased with my performance. The only error I’m aware of is that I didn’t pay enough attention to fielders’ positions, and allowed too many outside the inner ring on a few occasions. Unfortunately I’m told that one of those was for the ball on which a batsman was dismissed, out caught, which wouldn’t have happened if I’d called a no-ball like I should have. I shall try to remember to pay attention to this in the future, although it’s a bugger to enforce, as the inner circle is often either not marked or very hard to see. But it is at least enforceable for fielders positioned right out on the boundary.

Finally, something unusual happened in this game – an all-run four! It should have been two at most, but slow fielding and an inaccurate throw allowed the batsmen to run two more.

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington Park, Friendly

Ron’s XI vs Sam’s XI, 2022-04-23

40/40 game. Sam’s XI 150/4. Ron’s XI 144 from 39.5 overs – scorecard

My first game of the season was a Beddington intra-club friendly, and the first in a long time. I didn’t umpire anything like as much as I wanted to last season, because it seemed that almost every weekend when I was available for umpiring I either got called away for something else at short notice or it was raining.

The club’s 1st and 2nd XIs had friendly fixtures against other clubs, and this game was intended to be an opportunity for the 3rd and 4th XI players to “blow the rust off”. Accordingly, I was asked to favour the batsmen in LBW decisions so the openers could get some time in the middle. I didn’t have to, as there was only one close call which I wouldn’t have given out anyway. I stood at the bowler’s end throughout, accompanied by players at square leg.

Roughly one in seven runs came from extras, a mixture of wides and byes – clearly the bowlers needed some rust blowing off, not just the batsmen! And while there is a single six in the score book it was actually two runs plus four overthrows, which in my opinion should count as four extras but the High Lords Of Cricket disagree with me. I gave no balls for bowling so wide it wasn’t even on the strip, two for height, and some for overstepping, one of which was also hit for four.

The game was evenly poised until the end. Sam’s XI, batting first, were 118/4 at the end of their 33rd over, and Ron’s XI were only marginally behind the required run-rate, with 113 runs, at the same point in their innings. However, Ron’s XI had lost more wickets in getting there, and while the tail-enders actually managed to keep scoring fast enough, they couldn’t also defend their wickets at the same time and when Sam brought his opening bowlers back on for the last four overs the last three wickets fell quickly.

In post-match discussion people were sure that I’d got it wrong with the beamers and should have warned the bowler for his first one, and then asked the captain to replace him after his second one. I was fairly sure I was right, but not 100% sure and admitted that I may have got it wrong. However, I have now checked the scriptures. Law 41.7.1 says that such a delivery is unfair and as such a No Ball. Dangerous play is then covered in law 41.7.2, but says such a ball is “also dangerous if the bowler’s end umpire considers that there is a risk of injury to the striker“, and that the umpire should take into account the manner of delivery, the skill of the batsman, and whether it is done repeatedly. The laws make it clear that a delivery can be unfair without being dangerous, and so not merit a warning. I didn’t think there was any risk of injury because the ball wasn’t delivered particularly fast, and both were clearly one-off mistakes.

It was a fun game to watch, and I think my performance was OK despite my prolonged absence. The only errors I think I made were not signalling for byes once, and a couple of times I was too eager to signal wides to the scorers, taking my eye off the ball a bit too early before it was categorically dead, an error I’ve made before.

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington, Beddington Park, League, Mitcham

Beddington 4th XI vs Mitcham, 2021-06-12

45/45 game. Beddington won the toss and chose to bat. Beddington 189/9, Mitcham 108 from 39 overs – scorecard

Another sweltering day, with a breeze and occasional cloud, and another pitch in excellent condition. The outfield was quite fast, but it’s also big, allowing fielders to prevent too many boundaries if they put the effort in. For Beddington’s innings I was accompanied throughout by a single injured player as umpire, for Mitcham’s by a handful of players rotating in and out as the innings progressed.

This Mitcham side have a reputation for being hard to score against and were unbeaten so far in the league. The first Beddington wicket fell after just three balls, and two more fell quickly, putting the score on 15/3 after the first 10 overs. It looked like there was a bit of a kicking on the cards. But a 100 run partnership for the fifth wicket salvaged the game, and some very expensive overs at the end – the last five went for 47 runs – meant Beddington ended up with a very defendable total. While the batting was excellent in that high-scoring middle-order partnership, they were helped by some poor fielding. There was a constant drumbeat of “chase it”, “attack the ball”, and best of all “run you doughnut” from the wicket keeper-captain, and while it’s not an approach I remember from Brearley’s “Art of Captaincy” he was dead right with all his criticisms. I think the captain made a big mistake with not having one of his openers bowl his full allotment of overs. He was a youngster, who came off after six overs as required by the ECB’s regs for young fast bowlers, but he was brought back into the attack too late I thought, in the penultimate over, where he took two wickets. If he’d come back in earlier I rather suspect that Beddington’s high-scoring tail wouldn’t have done anything like as well. He ended on figures of 4/22 from seven overs, including two maidens.

In Mitcham’s innings I started off standing at square leg as usual when it was my turn, but soon switched to standing at point, as the popping crease on the leg side had become almost completely invisible from bowlers landing on it and batsmen standing on it.

In only one of their previous games this season have Mitcham had to chase anything like as high a total, and have also been dismissed for under a hundred only to return the favour to their opponents. This Beddington side’s opening bowlers are good, both taking wickets but also not conceding runs, and wickets will still fall for the later bowlers. It’s hard to build a long partnership against them, and Beddington took the field in a confident mood. Their fielding was also much better than Mitcham’s and the result wasn’t in any doubt from about the 20th over onwards, when it was 46/7. Mitcham’s tail wagged, but unlike Beddington’s which scored with abandon, Mitcham’s was just annoyingly hard to dismiss with one of them hanging around for 62 balls to score 18 runs.

Regular readers will have noticed that I very rarely mention individual players by name, but I’m going to make an exception for the absolutely outstanding effort from Beddington’s Awais Zahir. He took 5 wickets for 28 runs, which is an excellent performance on its own. But he also took a run-out and two catches!

One dismissal I gave (caught behind by the keeper off a faint edge) was a bit controversial. The non-striking batsman told me that he was sure the noise I’d heard was the bat hitting the ground. It was not. Not only did it happen while the bat was several inches off the ground, I also saw the ball change course. I got to make an unusual decision – denying leg-bye runs when the batsman hadn’t played a shot. And I also had to give a player a gentle telling off for using sweat on the ball, contra this season’s Special Plague Regulations. Even if I hadn’t seen him do it right in front of me the gigantic red stain that slowly started to run down his face would have been a dead give-away. I did, however, make a mistake in this regard: I should have made the fielding team sanitise the ball at that point, but I didn’t.

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington, League, Trinity Mid-Whits, Trinity Mid-Whits

Trinity Mid-Whitgiftian vs Beddington 4th XI, 2021-06-05

45/45 game. Trinity Mid-Whits won the toss and chose to bat. Trinity Mid-Whits 156/9, Beddington 159/3 from 34.4 overs – scorecard

Trinity Mid-Whits have a lovely ground in Sanderstead, on the edge of the urban sprawl, bounded by trees on three sides. The fourth side, with the pavilion and car parking, is backed by residential cul-de-sacs and there are no major roads nearby, so little traffic noise and plenty of bird song. It was a warm, humid, but breezy day with scattered cloud. Mid-Whits’ two fields share a boundary for a short distance, and the second field, on which we were playing, has a mixture of both long and short boundaries. There is also a thoroughly knackered astroturf pitch. The player who took a diving catch on that was a braver man than I, I’d have happily stood and watched the ball whizz by! I’m sure the blood stains will wash out of his whites. There had been plenty of rain the day before but the uncovered pitch was in good condition and barely broke up at the bowler’s landing spots all day. The field was damp, especially in the eastern corner, and so quite slow. I expected it to get faster as it dried off in the sun but it didn’t change much. I had an umpiring colleague throughout.

Mid-Whits got off to a reasonable start. They lost a man in the first over, but averaged about 3 runs per over at the start. But then they slowed down. From 58/1 at the end of the 20th over they went to 69/2 from 25 – at only 2-ish per over – and kept at that rate. Things were somewhat rescued by their 7th batsman who came in and really stepped on the accelerator. He was their highest scorer with 46 until he was out with 3 overs remaining. That slow down in the middle of the innings was largely down to the bowling of one man, who went for an average of just 1.89 from his 9 overs. He didn’t take any wickets, but in limited overs cricket it’s that economy that matters the most. Another went for only 2.67 an over from his allotment and also took four wickets.

In Beddington’s innings, Mid-Whits’ most economical bowler went for 3.44 an over, and the innings as a whole consisted of twenty-two 4s, three 6s, and the odd run here and there. Mid-Whits by comparison had thirteen 4s and two 6s, lots of singles, and some 2s and 3s, so it’s no wonder Beddington reached their target with plenty of overs to spare. This would normally be a sign that the field has dried out beautifully and sped up, and that choosing to bat first was a mistake. That was not the case in this match. Beddington’s batsmen simply hit the ball harder so it spent more time in the air and didn’t get slowed down. When they did hit it along the ground I don’t think it behaved particularly differently from in the first innings. There were plenty of dropped catches from both sides throughout the game, but Beddington benefited more from them.

I was pleased with my performance. I turned down plenty of LBW appeals and gave one. Some of the appeals I turned down were most vociferous, but there was no serious grumbling. I also gave a Mid-Whits player out stumped. He was cross with me, but he was a mile out of his ground. That’s not to say that I was error-free. I got at least one, and maybe another, call for byes wrong – the batsman had indeed got his bat on it. The fielders corrected me which I’m fine with. It made no difference to the result of course, but those wicket-keepers do like to have their stats correct! Finally, I forgot to take anything with me for the drinks breaks. The regulations for this season, like last year, are that players and officials have to provide their own.

LarvalStageUmpire Banstead, Beddington, Beddington Park, League

Beddington 4th XI vs Banstead, 2021-05-08

45/45 game. Banstead won the toss and chose to field. Beddington 193/7, Banstead 196/6 from 43 overs – scorecard

There had been heavy overnight showers, and the forecast wasn’t great for the day’s play either. It was a little damp in the outfield but the covers had been on overnight and done their job leaving the pitch in perfect condition. It was green but firm and while the damp made the outfield a little slow to start with, a strong breeze soon dealt with that. Play started under heavy cloud, but it got lighter throughout the day and by the time we finished at about half past seven it was bright sunshine. I was joined by a small number of player-umpires throughout. All were happy to stand at the bowler’s end when it was their turn, for which I am grateful.

Beddington started their innings with steady, sensible batting, going at about 3 an over for the first third of the innings, at which point they were on 46/2. Their number 3 batsman went on to an undefeated 93. Unfortunately only five batsmen made double figures, and one of them was Mr Extras with 25. There were plenty of wides, not helped, I think, by the strong wind. I turned down a few appeals – as did my colleagues at the other end – few of which were utterly ludicrous. Banstead’s fielders felt quite strongly about one of them and grumbled a bit about an LBW decision which I didn’t give, as I thought it was close but not out. I didn’t think the muttering came anything close to the sort of level of disagreement that required me to take any action but their captain was apologetic afterwards.

After the tea break Banstead’s captain accompanied me as the other umpire for most of the innings, until with ten overs to go and five wickets down he needed to go and pad up. They started a little slower, but were fluctuating around about the required run rate most of the time, leading to an exciting close finish. Two terribly expensive overs from Beddington’s bowlers, going for 11 and 9, sealed the game though.

I was reasonable happy with my performance. I made only two really controversial decisions, one the LBW that I have already talked about, and one which was a bit of a howler. I didn’t give a no-ball for height bowled by Beddington. The batsman was quite put out, the bowler had apologised to him, but I hadn’t signalled no-ball. Brief discussion with the other umpire and Beddington’s fielders showed me that I had been Dead Wrong. However, I had already called “over” and mistakenly (I’ve now checked in the Laws!) thought that that made it too late to change my mind so there was nothing to be done about it. I can in fact change my mind until the next ball is bowled.

I also made an uncontroversial, but perhaps more serious, error. Before the game I didn’t check with the captains if either had any under-age players, and remind them of the fast bowling restrictions. As a result, one of Banstead’s youngsters exceeded his permitted overs in a spell.

LarvalStageUmpire Ashburnham, Catsfield, Catsfield, Friendly

Catsfield vs Ashburnham, 2021-05-02

Timed game: 5 hours including tea break, 1 innings each. Ashburnham won the toss and chose to bat. Ashburnham 205 ao from 35.5 overs. Catsfield 120 ao from 32.1 overs.

When I left home it was a lovely day for cricket – warm, scattered clouds, no sign of rain. But the further south I got the cloudier the skies, and as I crossed the top of the Weald ridge going through Ashdown Forest there were the first spots of intermittent rain. They got heavier, and there was even a little bit of hail. “Bugger” I thought. My previous match between these two sides was rained off after only a few balls, and I wondered if this one would be too. But the rain stopped, and after lunch with my parents I headed to the ground, which had not had any rain at all. Indeed, it seems to be blessed, as during play we saw heavy showers marching past to both north and south, but they all missed us.

Catsfield’s ground is bordered on one side by a hedge and field, into which a few balls went but were quickly retrieved, and on another by a small bluebell wood, with a steep drop-off a few yards in down towards a stream. I am surprised no balls were lost there. The other two sides are open. The ground is a reasonable size – not large by any means, but also not a tiddler like Ashburnham’s is. The field slopes slightly down from north to south, although the pitch is flat, and the outfield was dry and fast.

I was accompanied all day by another umpire so instead of doing the bowler’s end throughout I alternated with square leg as the Ancients decreed, although the only decisions I had to make from there were about no balls for height – I let a couple go which were marginal, and called one. I also signalled for penalty runs once when the ball hit the wicket keeper’s unused helmet that was behind him on the field. That should have been signalled by my colleague at the bowler’s end, but he didn’t, and talking to him afterwards he couldn’t remember the signal. It’s one that you very rarely see so is easy to forget, as I did in a league match last year.

In their innings Ashburnham scored quickly, and while five batsmen were out for ducks, there were excellent partnerships for the 2nd and 4th wickets, of 91 and 54. The bowling was better than the score book would lead you to believe, the fast outfield let many deliveries that would normally go for one or two race away to the boundary, but there were only three balls hit for six. One of Ashburnham’s players told me that he thought 220 was about par so they were a bit behind when I gave their last real batsman out LBW for a creditable 44 runs a few minutes before the scheduled tea break, leaving the team captain not out on no runs, and having faced no balls at all.

Catsfield’s innings got off to a slower start, and despite the occasional expensive over they never looked like catching up. The key statistic separating the sides is that Catsfield bowled one maiden over, but Ashburnham bowled ten – and six of those were wicket-maidens, including three in a row for one bowler who was getting the ball to move sideways. I couldn’t see from close up what on earth he was doing with it, so I pity the poor batsmen. It was a joy to watch!

I was happy with my own performance. I gave a couple of wides, turned down a few LBWs, gave one, and would have very seriously considered a couple of others if there had been an appeal. I’m only aware of one small mistake I made. I called and signalled for a front-foot no ball at one point, but didn’t repeat my signal to the scorer when the ball was dead. I should do that when the ball is dead regardless, but especially at this ground where I was standing side-on to the scorer and so he had no chance of seeing my original signal. The score board was correct though, so he must have heard me.