Ask the Laws Department: XIV (Run outs)
MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with Wisden Cricketer. The fourteenth issue considers run outs.
Run out the Wright way
Adil Rashid was involved in an interesting run-out There was a hint of confusion among some players and viewers about the run-out of Luke Wright during the first ODI between England and Australia at The Oval.
Brett Lee bowled a no-ball that Wright tried but failed to turn to the leg side. The ball went through to the wicketkeeper, Tim Paine, who was standing back and Wright set off to run.
He took only two or three steps before being sent back by his partner, Adil Rashid, but he was not able to get back to his ground before the throw from Paine hit the stumps.
He started to walk back to the pavilion before realising that he could not be stumped off a no-ball and so he decided to check with the umpires as to whether he was out.
Quite correctly the umpires said he was run out and sent him on his way.
Law 24.15 makes it clear that you cannot be stumped off a no-ball but you can be run out. So the important question to clarify is where the distinctions are drawn between a run-out
and a stumping in these circumstances.
The key is whether or not the striker is attempting a run and this is clarified by Law 39.3, which states: 39.3(a) If the striker is not out Stumped, he is liable to be out Run out if the conditions of Law 38 (Run out) apply, except as set out in (b) below.
39.3(b) The striker shall not be out Run out if he is out of
his ground, not attempting a run, and his wicket is fairly put down by the wicketkeeper without the intervention of another member of the fielding side, if no-ball has been called.
A stumping or a run out? The caveat about not attempting a run is vital to give a striker protection when a ‘stumping’ is attempted from a no-ball.
It would be farcical if he cannot be out stumped but for the fielding side to claim that they are appealing for the run-out rather than the stumping.
And so the Laws recognise the difference between the striker setting off to run and the striker skipping down the pitch to play a shot.
Attempting a run is also important when the delivery is not a no-ball. If the striker is out of his ground but not attempting a run when the striker’s wicket is fairly put down by the wicketkeeper without the intervention of another member of the fielding side, he will be out stumped.
If he is attempting a run when the same events occur, he will be run out and the bowler will not get credit for the dismissal.
It is for the striker’s-end umpire to decide whether the striker was attempting a run. Returning to the example from The Oval, it was clear that Luke Wright was attempting a run, rather than simply leaving his ground while playing the
stroke, and so the correct decision was made.
Ask the umpire
- with MCC Laws sub-committee
"The striker hits the ball straight back towards the bowler. The ball hits the stumps without touching any fielder and, without touching the ground, ricochets into the hands of a fielder. Is the batsman out caught?"
MCC says:
Yes, he would be out caught, as long as the ball was not a no-ball. Law 32.3(e), although not mentioning the stumps at the bowler’s end, makes clear that deflected catches in other circumstances are allowed.
The Law states that "a catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if a fielder catches the ball after it has touched an umpire, another fielder or the other batsman...
"However, it is not a fair catch if the ball has touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder, although the ball remains in play."
