Cricket

[Harvester]

Though Gus Atkinson did well at farming the strike. After Tongue's wicket fell, there were 13 balls bowled and 10 runs scored, without Woakes facing a single delivery.

What if (hypothetically) he did have to face a ball and the umpires deemed it unsafe, or if India declined to bowl at him? Would he have had to retire hurt once more, with India then winning the game!

 

[DelW]

What if (hypothetically) he did have to face a ball and the umpires deemed it unsafe, or if India declined to bowl at him? Would he have had to retire hurt once more, with India then winning the game!

Another possible option would have been for India to bowl spin, as is done when the light is deemed so poor that fast bowling is dangerous. But I don't know what the laws say in this situation.

 

[Haywain]

What if (hypothetically) he did have to face a ball and the umpires deemed it unsafe, or if India declined to bowl at him? Would he have had to retire hurt once more, with India then winning the game!

The umpires have no business declaring it unsafe other than fr reasons of light or weather. The player has deemed himself fit by appearing at the crease with bat in hand. If India did not wish to bowl at him they could simply bowl wide of the stumps and allow a bye or wides to be conceded in order to take him away from the strike - they could not win by declining to bowl.

 

[TheSel]

The umpires have no business declaring it unsafe other than fr reasons of light or weather. The player has deemed himself fit by appearing at the crease with bat in hand. If India did not wish to bowl at him they could simply bowl wide of the stumps and allow a bye or wides to be conceded in order to take him away from the strike - they could not win by declining to bowl.

Hmmmm. That's an interesting point.

Law 41.2.1 "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play. If an umpire considers that any action by a player, not covered in the Laws, is unfair, he/she shall call and signal Dead ball, if appropriate, as soon as it becomes clear that the call will not disadvantage the non-offending side, and report the matter to the other umpire."

Nothing there that limits 'unsafe' to reasons of light or weather. To be fair, though, there is nothing in the laws that refers to safety - only fairness.

Laws 41.6 & 41.7 then go into far more detail on the subjects of "Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries" and "Bowling of dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries" respectively, but essentially it is up to the bowler's end umpire to make such [subjective] decisions.

Quotes taken from the MCC's website, here. Laws © Marylebone Cricket Club 2017

 

[Haywain]

Law 41.2.1 "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play.

I don't think fairness was being referred to. I believe it was a reference to safety which is covered in law 2.7 (same source):

2.7 Fitness for play

2.7.1 It is solely for the umpires together to decide whether either conditions of ground, weather or light or exceptional circumstances mean that it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place.

Conditions shall not be regarded as either dangerous or unreasonable merely because they are not ideal.

The fact that the grass and the ball are wet does not warrant the ground conditions being regarded as unreasonable or dangerous.

2.7.2 Conditions shall be regarded as dangerous if there is actual and foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire.

2.7.3 Conditions shall be regarded as unreasonable if, although posing no risk to safety, it would not be sensible for play to proceed.

Nothing there that limits 'unsafe' to reasons of light or weather. To be fair, though, there is nothing in the laws that refers to safety - only fairness.

If simply bowling to Woakes might have been unfair, how does that frame England bowling at Pant in the last test? I maintain that if a player appears at the crease he is accepting that he will face the same bowling as any other player, and that bowling cannot be unfair because the batter is injured. If, in Woakes’s case, they bowl beamers at his arm that could be deemed unfair but then England bowling yorkers at Pant's foot could be viewed in the same way - the difference is that a beamer is not generally seen as a fair or acceptable delivery.

 

[TheSel]

I don't think fairness was being referred to. I believe it was a reference to safety which is covered in law 2.7 (same source):



If simply bowling to Woakes might have been unfair, how does that frame England bowling at Pant in the last test? I maintain that if a player appears at the crease he is accepting that he will face the same bowling as any other player, and that bowling cannot be unfair because the batter is injured. If, in Woakes’s case, they bowl beamers at his arm that could be deemed unfair but then England bowling yorkers at Pant's foot could be viewed in the same way - the difference is that a beamer is not generally seen as a fair or acceptable delivery.

Yeah - don't argue with any of that, or with you. Merely saying that - like most things - it's subjective. At some point, professionalism, sportsmanship, gamesmanship, and the desire to win may push the laws and the spirit to the limits. And those limits are not (and probably can never be) defined in absolute terms.

 

[Haywain]

Yeah - don't argue with any of that, or with you. Merely saying that - like most things - it's subjective. At some point, professionalism, sportsmanship, gamesmanship, and the desire to win may push the laws and the spirit to the limits. And those limits are not (and probably can never be) defined in absolute terms.

I think we are broadly in agreement that if Woakes had needed to face the bowling, he would have been fair game for normal bowling - after all, the only reason he was out there was because England wanted to win, so it wouldn't be realistic to expect India to be charitable when they had the same intention.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Hmmmm. That's an interesting point.

Law 41.2.1 "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play. If an umpire considers that any action by a player, not covered in the Laws, is unfair, he/she shall call and signal Dead ball, if appropriate, as soon as it becomes clear that the call will not disadvantage the non-offending side, and report the matter to the other umpire."

Nothing there that limits 'unsafe' to reasons of light or weather. To be fair, though, there is nothing in the laws that refers to safety - only fairness.

Laws 41.6 & 41.7 then go into far more detail on the subjects of "Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries" and "Bowling of dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries" respectively, but essentially it is up to the bowler's end umpire to make such [subjective] decisions.

Quotes taken from the MCC's website, here. Laws © Marylebone Cricket Club 2017

It isn’t just the laws, though. The ECB made the wearing of helmets mandatory back in 2016 in the aftermath of Phillip Hughes’ death

But as for Woakes, he had two options - get bandaged up and bat as well as he could, or retire hurt

 

[TheSel]

I think we are broadly in agreement that if Woakes had needed to face the bowling, he would have been fair game for normal bowling - after all, the only reason he was out there was because England wanted to win, so it wouldn't be realistic to expect India to be charitable when they had the same intention.

Agreed.

 

[DarloRich]

Question: Did Woakes have to carry a bat?

Could have just dropped it and trundled through for the run AND/OR could have he stood in the middle of the wicket, dropped the bat and just let the ball hit him, offering no shot?

I cant recall the laws on that topic!

( I know all hypothetical but the kind of thing cricket loves to talk about!)

 

[SuspectUsual]

Question: Did Woakes have to carry a bat?

Could have just dropped it and trundled through for the run AND/OR could have he stood in the middle of the wicket, dropped the bat and just let the ball hit him, offering no shot?

I cant recall the laws on that topic!

( I know all hypothetical but the kind of thing cricket loves to talk about!)

Yes. You have to have all the equipment. Otherwise you could have the situation of a batsman coming in with one ball to go needing run(s) to win, being at the non-strikers end and choosing not to wear pads as it means they can run faster. They’d normally still bring a bat though as it increases their reach

 

[Haywain]

Could have just dropped it and trundled through for the run

Yes, it is something that occasionally happens accidentally, but doing it deliberately carries greater risk of being run out.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, it is something that occasionally happens accidentally, but doing it deliberately carries greater risk of being run out.

As in that he couldn't stretch for the line?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Could have just dropped it and trundled through for the run AND/OR could have he stood in the middle of the wicket, dropped the bat and just let the ball hit him, offering no shot?

I don’t know what the umps would do in the event that a batsman deliberately and repeatedly let the ball hit him, making no attempt to use his bat to protect himself

 

[Haywain]

As in that he couldn't stretch for the line?

Correct.

I don’t know what the umps would do in the event that a batsman deliberately and repeatedly let the ball hit him, making no attempt to use his bat to protect himself

Be busy dealing with the lbw appeals!

 

[SuspectUsual]

Be busy dealing with the lbw appeals!

If they pitched it up!

But my point is there must be a player safety responsibility - a bit like the ref stepping in to end a boxing match

 

[DarloRich]

Be busy dealing with the lbw appeals!

is there not a caveat about distance from the stumps?

 

[SuspectUsual]

is there not a caveat about distance from the stumps?

Yes, but:

(1) if the batsman isn’t in a “normal” position to receive the ball the ump will hold his arm out to stop the bowler

(2) if the batsman isn’t playing a shot the scope of LBW increases (can be out of impact is outside off stump)

 

[Haywain]

But my point is there must be a player safety responsibility - a bit like the ref stepping in to end a boxing match

That's been covered above. The umpires worry about the light, for example, not whether the batter keeps their eyes open.

 

[SuspectUsual]

That's been covered above. The umpires worry about the light, for example, not whether the batter keeps their eyes open.

If a batsman is getting peppered and can’t even try and prevent the ball hitting him, I’d be amazed if the umpires allowed it to continue.

 

[TheSel]

is there not a caveat about distance from the stumps?

In terms of DRS (Decision Review System) - aka 'Hawkeye', yes. It will not overturn an umpire's decision if a batter is more than a certain distance down the pitch at the point of [bodily] impact. I think that distance is 1.5 metres, but I'm happy to be corrected if someone knows better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2025 ==

Question: Did Woakes have to carry a bat?

Could have just dropped it and trundled through for the run AND/OR could have he stood in the middle of the wicket, dropped the bat and just let the ball hit him, offering no shot?

I cant recall the laws on that topic!

( I know all hypothetical but the kind of thing cricket loves to talk about!)

I've been searching the laws, and although there's lots of stuff in there about the bat's permissible size, weight and material, I cannot find anything that states a batter must carry a bat at all. Obviously we've all seen occasions on which a batter accidentally drops the bat, and that is [rightly] not penalised.

Oddly, Law 25.5.2.4 does, however, mandate that a runner must carry one though!

25.5.2 A runner shall:
...
25.5.2.4 wear external protective equipment equivalent to that worn by the batter for whom he/she runs and shall carry a bat. [my emboldening for clarity].

 

[Haywain]

If a batsman is getting peppered and can’t even try and prevent the ball hitting him, I’d be amazed if the umpires allowed it to continue.

If he can't or won't prevent the ball hitting him he will likely be out fairly quickly anyway. If not, the umpires can potentially punish the batter's team under law 42, unfair play - the punishment can be 5 penalty runs against them or the batter being ordered from the field, neither of which would be helpful for the last wicket.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I don’t know what the umps would do in the event that a batsman deliberately and repeatedly let the ball hit him, making no attempt to use his bat to protect himself

Didn't Brian Close do just that for England vs West Indies at Old Trafford in 1976? Almost 50 years ago now, and rules do change.

 

[SuspectUsual]

In terms of DRS (Decision Review System) - aka 'Hawkeye', yes. It will not overturn an umpire's decision if a batter is more than a certain distance down the pitch at the point of [bodily] impact. I think that distance is 1.5 metres, but I'm happy to be corrected if someone knows better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2025 ==


I've been searching the laws, and although there's lots of stuff in there about the bat's permissible size, weight and material, I cannot find anything that states a batter must carry a bat at all. Obviously we've all seen occasions on which a batter accidentally drops the bat, and that is [rightly] not penalised.

Oddly, Law 25.5.2.4 does, however, mandate that a runner must carry one though!

25.5.2 A runner shall:
...
25.5.2.4 wear external protective equipment equivalent to that worn by the batter for whom he/she runs and shall carry a bat. [my emboldening for clarity].

Interestingly, Woakes didn't have a runner yesterday but would have been entitled to one (injury occurred during the match and impacted his ability to run - he was clearly wincing with every step). Given running byes to the keeper would be a key way of keeping him off strike, I'm surprised they didn't do this

 

[Haywain]

Interestingly, Woakes didn't have a runner yesterday but would have been entitled to one (injury occurred during the match and impacted his ability to run - he was clearly wincing with every step). Given running byes to the keeper would be a key way of keeping him off strike, I'm surprised they didn't do this

Runners haven't been allowed in test cricket for many years.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Runners haven't been allowed in test cricket for many years.

Indeed. Not since before October 2011.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Indeed. Not since before October 2011.

That explains it then!

 

[PauloDavesi]

Any full toss above waist high is a no ball, so it would not be permitted to deliberately bowl beamers at the batsmans arm. Indeed the bowler would be warned after the first offence and stopped from bowling again, and reported to teh authorities after a second occurance.
If a batsman allows the ball to hit him, or is hit by the ball, and in not making a genuine shot, within the ability of the batsman, the ball would be called dead, and no runs could be scored.

 

[DarloRich]

If a batsman allows the ball to hit him, or is hit by the ball, and in not making a genuine shot, within the ability of the batsman, the ball would be called dead, and no runs could be scored.

if the aim was simply to survive the over and not score would a dead ball count towards the 6 balls in an over?

I am sorry this is so esoteric but i couldn't sleep last night and this popped into the old brain cells!

 

[TheSel]

if the aim was simply to survive the over and not score would a dead ball count towards the 6 balls in an over?

I am sorry this is so esoteric but i couldn't sleep last night and this popped into the old brain cells!

Simple answer - No.