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!

Advertisement
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.