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.

Advertisement
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.