A Fielder Writes...

The game between England and the West Indies had just about everything and was a thrilling game of cricket, but it also featured one incident that could have had a profound impact on the game and was, ultimately, resolved unsatisfactorily.

There is no doubt that, with the laws of the game as they are and with the convention of giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, the third umpire was far more likely to award a six to Andre Russell than to give him out when Jonathan Trott and this is fair enough – all that players ask for is consistency. However, it also called into question two things: firstly the definition of when a ball should be deemed to have crossed the boundary and, secondly, the whole convention around giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

The first is something that plenty of commentators, most notably Michael Holding, have been talking about for some time. The current law, that determines that a ball is deemed to have crossed the boundary if a player is in simultaneous contact with the ball and the rope, is out of date since it was created in an era of notably less dynamic fielding. Time is frequently wasted in games determining whether or not a fielder has brushed the rope, time which could be better spent keeping over rates up. It would be much simpler for all, players, umpires and spectators, if the law was changed to relate exclusively to the position of the ball and for a boundary only to be awarded if the ball hits, crosses or breaks the vertical plane of the boundary.

The second issue, that of the benefit of the doubt, has long been a bugbear of mine, although I would acknowledge that the fact that I have spent my cricketing life with ball rather than bat has a bearing on my opinion. For one thing it is not, contrary to popular belief, enshrined in the laws of the game it is, instead, a convention that has arisen over time, with some umpires (I’m looking at you, Dickie Bird) taking it almost to the point of mania. In some cases, however, it is time to re-assess this position.

The Jonathan Trott non-catch, and Nathan McCullum’s ruled out effort today, have shown that there are circumstances in which the use of video muddies the water significantly. There has long been discussion of the foreshortening effects of the camera that create the optical illusion that a ball held just above the ground appears to be resting on the ground, and in Trott’s case there was no clear evidence that he had touched the rope, merely the possibility that he had. Here, then, is a suggestion: in cases like this the benefit of the doubt should be given to the fielder. If there is clear evidence to rule out the catch, such as the ball clearly bouncing or a player clearly touching the boundary then, by all means, give the batsman out, but if the replay is inconclusive make the assumption that the catch is legal. To do otherwise is to reward poor batting and to penalise good fielding, which is an injustice.