RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from Yahoo Sports — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sources
The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has issued an official clarification on Law 20.4.2.5 concerning batters who are not ready to face a delivery, following two contrasting incidents during The Hundred at Lord's. The clarification comes after umpires made different decisions in seemingly similar situations involving Nicholas Pooran and Marizanne Kapp. The MCC, the custodian of the Laws of Cricket, has now explained what constitutes an "attempt to play the ball" when deciding whether a delivery should be called dead. What happened with Nicholas Pooran?
The first incident occurred during the August 6 men's fixture between MI London and London Spirit. Liam Livingstone twice stopped during his run-up before eventually delivering the ball, with Pooran indicating that he was not ready. When Livingstone bowled, Pooran withdrew his bat from the line of the delivery and made no attempt to play it. The ball hit the stumps, but umpire Mike Burns called it dead. The MCC confirmed the decision was correct, noting that Pooran had not attempted to play the ball and had adequate reason for not being ready.
— MCCOfficial (@MCCOfficial)
Why was Marizanne Kapp's delivery different?
Three days later, a similar situation unfolded during the women's match between London Spirit and Birmingham Phoenix. Kapp appeared unprepared when Linsey Smith delivered the ball but instinctively moved her bat towards it and made contact. Umpire Mark Newell called it a fair delivery, and the MCC confirmed that decision was also correct. The MCC explained that the crucial factor is whether the batter attempted to play the ball, not whether meaningful contact was made. MCC explains the law
Under Law 20.4.2.5, a delivery can be called dead when the striker is not ready and does not attempt to play the ball, provided the umpire is satisfied that the batter had an adequate reason for being unprepared. The MCC stated: "Pooran, perhaps knowing the Law, actively withdrew his bat from the line of the ball". In Kapp's case, the governing body said she "instinctively prodded at the ball and made contact with it. As soon as she attempted to hit the ball – and note the Law talks about “attempting” to play the ball rather than actually making contact with it – the ball would not be Dead, and the ball will count in the over, as correctly identified by umpire Newell." The MCC also pointed to Law 41.10.1, which states: "It is unfair for a batter to waste time." "In the Pooran/Livingstone example, there was frustration on both sides and the natural rhythm of the over had been disrupted. Umpire Burns was correct in stating that the ball was Dead and should not count, and he would have been sensible to remind both players that the batter must not delay things and the bowler cannot overly rush things more than normal," the MCC further wrote.
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.