LarvalStageUmpire Addiscombe, Beddington, League, Walcountians

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, 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 Beddington, League, Nursery Road, Old Rutlishians

Old Rutlishians vs Beddington 4th XI, 2020-09-05

40/40 game. Beddington won the toss and batted first. Beddington 98 ao from 35.2 overs. Old Rutlishians 99/5 from 31.2 overs – scorecard

This was the last match of the truncated league season and Beddington were duking it out with Sutton for bottom of the league, although there is no promotion and relegation this year. The conditions were excellent, with some cloud cover but intermittent sunshine, and a nice dry field. The wicket was rather green. My only concern about the ground came up during the second innings, when the bowler’s landing point at my end was getting rather eroded away, not helped by a batsman running his bat into it rather hard. Conditions didn’t deteriorate to the extent that I thought anything needed to be done, but if this had been a 50 over game – and had gone the distance – I think things would have been different. For the first time in a league match this season there was another umpire so I got a stand at square leg half the time, as the Cricket Gods intended. I’ve noted previously how, while I don’t mind being the only “full time” umpire and doing bowler’s end duties throughout, it is nice to have another umpire instead of a succession of otherwise unoccupied batsmen. That’s partly because you get more consistency, but also partly because you can chat with each other about the players without worrying about giving away information about what the bowlers are doing.

Beddington’s innings followed what has become a familiar pattern this season, with one or two batsmen making a decent start – the openers got 11 (off 16 balls, a good solid defensive showing before I gave him out LBW) and 36 – but then little to back them up. Only one got beyond 20, and only four made double figures. Scoring was extremely slow, at around 2 runs per over in the first ten overs. It then briefly went up to just over 5 an over for a short while as Old Ruts third and fourth bowlers came in, but that flurry didn’t last. From 66/3 in the 21st over, things collapsed to 98 all out from bowling that was very economical and a decent fielding performance.

Set a target of just 99 to win the sensible money would have been on Old Ruts to win quickly before everyone headed off for end of season drinks at their home clubs. But Beddington’s opening bowlers did an excellent job. Both opened with a maiden, and between them they gave away only 35 runs in their 16 overs, taking four wickets. If the team had kept going at that rate a Beddington win was on the cards, but it wasn’t to be. Several dropped catches meant that only one more wicket fell, and a settled partnership for the last ten overs played brought the score from a precarious 51/5 to the required 99 – with the last run coming, unfortunately, from a wide that was soooo wide that it was just impossible for me to be charitable about it and I had no choice but to give it, and be a meanie to the bowler.

I was happy with my performance, although I made two controversial decisions. The first was during Beddington’s innings when I gave the opening batsman out LBW. I took a while to make my decision, as it was close and I wanted to run it through in my head again, but I decided that the ball was going to just barely hit leg stump. Definitely an “umpire’s call” decision if there was a TV review! As I was raising my arm to signal that the batsman was out one of the fielders said “going down leg”, but no, I was sure. I was in a better position to see it than he was. The batsman was understandably miffed, and afterwards told me that if it was such a close decision I should have given him the benefit of the doubt. That, however, is not something that appears in the laws. I should give him out if I am sure that he is out. And I was sure. I was sure that he was only just out. The “benefit of the doubt” confusion comes from, if an umpire does have some doubt about a decision then he should err towards not making a decision – that is, not signalling out, or no ball, or wide, or anything else. But provided that I’m sure, I can be sure that the ball would have just tickled the stump, or sure that a bowler overstepped his mark by the smallest of margins. My other controversial decision was the first of two wides (the other being clearly wide to all concerned) I gave against one of Beddington’s bowlers. Again, it was a close decision – I suppose all contentious decisions will be – but I was sure, so gave it.

Finally, I added another no-ball to my collection! There are a bazillion reasons for a no-ball, the most common being the bowler being too far forward, and the two types of too high delivery. I’ve given those three numerous times. I’ve also given the rather rare no-ball for a ball bouncing twice before reaching the crease. In this game one of the Old Ruts bowlers had a delivery style where he kicked his rear foot up and to the side as he delivered the ball, usually missing the stumps by a few inches, occasionally straying much closer – and once, he kicked a bail off.

LarvalStageUmpire Beddington, Beddington Park, League, Old Wimbledonians

Beddington 4th XI vs Old Wimbledonians, 2020-08-29

40/40 game reduced to 35/35. Beddington won the toss and fielded first. Old Wimbledonians 143/4. Beddington 116ao from 33.3 overs – scorecard

The soggy Pavilion end, after the game was finished

Overnight rain left the outfield soaking, so much so that just standing on it would squeeze water out around your shoes in some places. The pitch had been covered, but the covers seem to have come loose in the high winds and so it was also wet around the wickets at both ends and in a patch in the middle. The covers were just coming off as I arrived and I went straight out to see how things were. Conditions were atrocious. Just putting your foot down – in ordinary shoes, not spikes – left a clear imprint next to the wicket where the bowlers would be landing, and without much effort I could push my finger into the ground. Start to put any force on the ground like the bowlers would and it would cut up horribly, to the extent that I thought it would be dangerously unsound footing. There was a strong breeze which would help things to dry out, but I wasn’t optimistic. A few minutes before the scheduled start at 1pm I did another pitch inspection and while things had improved they hadn’t improved enough in my opinion, and so despite much complaint from one of Beddington’s bowlers I told the captains we would delay the start and I would have another look in half an hour. The complaining bowler’s position was that if he was happy to bowl he should be allowed to. But that’s not how it works. In any case, the rest of the field, including parts of the pitch, was so wet that even if we had started on time it wouldn’t have been a very good game. Finally, another half hour later, I did a third inspection and deemed that the breeze had helped the ground firm up enough that we could get the game on. The late start reduced the game from 40 overs a side to 35.

With the help of plenty of sawdust on the bowlers’ landing spots the ground held up pretty well, but even so it was a difficult batting pitch, as the wetter spots were dead and so the ball often kept unexpectedly low. Old Wimbledonians’ first wicket fell for just three runs, and after the first ten overs the score was just ten. But after that point Wimbledonians got into their stride and started scoring more freely. The second wicket didn’t fall until the 25th over, with the score on 84, for a fairly respectable three and a bit per over, and after that they really cracked on, going at nigh on 6 an over for the rest of their innings, punishing the part-time bowlers hard. Their opening batsman carried his bat, making 62. I thought Beddington’s performance in the field was a lot better than last week, and that the target of 144 was not out of reach, especially as conditions for the batsman were improving as things dried out.

Beddington’s innings got off to a cracking start. It took Wimbledonians eight overs to score eight runs, it took Beddington’s opening batsman just one over. But unfortunately wickets fell too quickly to some good bowling – six men were out bowled – and only three made it past 20 runs, with six making less than 10. There was one comedy dismissal, where the non-striker had left the crease but then there was no run. He just stood there, several feet out of his ground. The ball went to a fielder, who chucked it back to the bowler, and I had the easiest run-out decision ever. I really didn’t want to give it, because it was such a silly way to get out and he had plenty of time to walk back to safety, but he didn’t, so I had no choice. Later, when Beddington’s last two men were batting, Wimbledonians had another opportunity for an easy run-out as the two batsmen had run into each other and were lying on the ground laughing at themselves. I thought it was very sporting that they didn’t take the wicket. Bravo!

I was happy with my performance. I do wonder if I did the right thing by delaying the start – whether conditions were actually dangerous – but aside from that I’m confident that I got everything else right. There were surprisingly few silly appeals in this game, which was good. Another sign, like Wimbledonians’ generously not taking that wicket after the pratfall, that the game was played in the spirit it ought to be.