London, Aug 14 (IANS) The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the custodians of the cricket laws, on Friday clarified the dead-ball rule after the law was applied in two different ways by the umpires in the ongoing 'The Hundred' in England.

The MCC, which is authorised to make, change and interpret cricket laws, defined what 'attempting to play the ball' means while adjudging dead-ball decisions by the umpires during two different games in the 100-ball competition.

The first instance occurred in the August 6 game between MI London and London Spirit. MI's Nicholas Pooran and Spirit captain Liam Livingstone had a bit of a cat-and-mouse when the English international stopped just before delivering a ball twice. Pooran then indicated he was not ready to face a ball as Livingstone aborted his run-up.

However, Pooran again seemed to have thought that Livingstone was not going to send down the ball as he moved his bat away from the line of the ball. The ball hit the stumps, but the umpire, Mike Burns, deemed it a dead ball.

The other incident involved London Spirit's Marizanne Kapp and Birmingham Phoenix’s Linsey Smith and occurred three days later. Kapp looked up as Smith sent down a ball with the Spirit batter clearly appearing not ready to face it.

However, Kapp half-heartedly waved her bat at the ball and made contact with it. The contact, it seemed, was not to score runs or defend the ball, but it looked an instinctive one. On this occasion, umpire Mark Newell called it a fair ball or one of the over.

With the two incidents confusing fans, MCC cleared the air and detailed the dead-ball rule. According to it, "either umpire shall call and signal Dead-ball when the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and, if the ball is delivered, does not attempt to play it. Provided the umpire is satisfied that the striker had adequate reason for not being ready, the ball shall not count as one of the over."

It further stressed the two crucial aspects in the law -- whether there is an attempt to play the ball and, secondly, whether the batter not being ready to face it is justified.

In Pooran's case, it said that "Pooran, perhaps knowing the Law, actively withdrew his bat from the line of the ball". But in Kapp's case, "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."

Meanwhile, the MCC added that if the batter did not attempt to play the ball, the umpire should decide whether there is significant reason to affirm that he/she was not ready to face it.

As per Law 41.10.1, "It is unfair for a batter to waste time. In normal circumstances, the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to start his/her run-up."

At times, the batter is justifiably not ready to play the ball. He/she can be hampered by the bowler shortening their normal run-up, turning after walking back and immediately beginning to run, or having a bit of a pause. In all of this, it is the role of the umpire to judge whether there is enough reason for the batter to not be ready.

"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.

--IANS

vc/bsk/