England’s captain Alastair Cook said that the decision to recall David Warner was wrong. The event in question occurred during the Australian run chase in the first ODI at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on January 12, 2014. The fourth ball of the fourteenth over was bowled by Ben Stokes. David Warner tried to play it behind square on the off side, got a thin edge and the English wicket keeper Jos Butler claimed the catch. David Warner walked away, despite the fact that the umpire Simon Fry indicated to his partner Ranmore Martinesz at square leg that he was unsure if the catch had been properly completed. Warner was asked to wait inside the boundary line by the 4th umpire while the catch was reviewed on video.
The video could not confirm that the catch was clean and Warner was recalled. I did not watch the incident live, but I read about it today, and subsequently watched a recording on willow (subscription may be necessary). On commentary, David Lloyd, a former first class umpire, and Ian Healy, a former Australian wicket keeper thought it looked out on the replay. Michael Slater, a former opening batsman, thought it bounced. On balance, I think that Slater was probably right. It would be nearly impossible for it to be the case that the ball fully hit Jos Butler’s gloved little-finger before bouncing up into his palms, without any part of the ball touching the ground.
But this difference of opinion is besides the point. The choices the Umpire made are far more interesting.
This is a simple Umpire’s review. Under 2.2(a) of the Standard ODI Playing Conditions for 2013-14 (see p. 4.37), if the Umpire is unsure if a catch is clean, first the square leg umpire and if necessary the TV Umpire may be consulted before the umpire at the bowler’s end reaches a decision. It is a central fact of the umpire’s review that the decision is made by the umpire at the bowler’s end. This is often ignored is discussions of reviews on commentary.
Under this DRS rule, Umpire Fry was correct. However, the 2013-14 playing conditions fully adopt Law 27 and Law 32 which specify what constitutes an appeal, and a caught dismissal respectively.
In cricket, the laws do not apply unless the players seek their application. So even if a batsman is ought caught, the umpire may not give a decision unless he is asked to give one. The process of asking the umpire for a decision is the appeal. However, dismissals can also be effected without appeals. This happens all the time. In obvious run outs or when a batsman is bowled or caught at slip or in the outfield, there is almost never an appeal. The batsman leaves. This is codified in Law 27. The relevant parts (1), (2) and (7) are as follows:
1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal
Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 7 below.
2. Batsman dismissed
A batsman is dismissed if,
either (a) he is given out by an umpire, on appeal,
or (b) he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above.7. Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension
An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman.
Umpire Fry must have decided that Warner “left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out”. Conventionally, this rule exists to give Umpires the ability to recall batsmen who have left the wicket after being dismissed off a no-ball. The misapprehension typically relates to a batsman missing an affirmative ruling by an umpire.
Alastair Cook said the umpire was wrong to recall Warner because the catch was clean. If that is the basis for his view, then Cook is wrong. But did the Umpire have the right to recall Warner given that Warner was satisfied with Butler’s claim that the catch was clean and “was dismissed” under Law 27(2)(b)?
In this case, an appeal was made. Or rather, a catch was claimed. The batsman was satisfied with this claim and walked off. The umpire, judging by his actions, was not convinced by the claim (probably correctly so) and decided to take it upon himself to rule on England’s appeal, and ignore Warner’s view of the claim.
Umpire Fry’s application of Law 27(7) is novel to say the least, but also probably appropriate. The one problem area is whether an Umpire can still take an appeal under consideration if a batsman “is dismissed” because he has walked. This is to say, can “misapprehension” be related directly to the claim in the appeal, as opposed to some unrelated matter such as a front foot no ball, or illegal field setting? This is not a trivial question, because otherwise, an Umpire is not allowed to reverse a decision unless the fielding captain withdraws the appeal. I suppose Umpire Fry would argue that he did not make a decision at all, but merely disregarded the batsman’s acceptance of the claim of a catch by the wicketkeeper.
Without DRS, there would have been no provision for Warner to be recalled in the manner that he was. Umpire Fry has set a new precedent at Melbourne through his interpretation of Law 27(7). Those who believe that the correct decision must be reached every single time by the Umpire should cheer this new interpretation. But those who believe that a batsman has the right to walk off if he’s convinced he’s out, should worry.
I’m not at all sure that Warner being recalled in this fashion is a good thing. I think the Umpire should get involved only if a batsman disputes the fielding side’s claim of dismissal. For that is what an appeal really is – a claim that the batsman is out.