5 elementary laws in cricket that make the game look like a joke

The laws of cricket are intriguing, complex and at times contradictory.Early this year, a sequence of lunch room conversations between a bunch of enthusiastic Indians and a team of visiting German colleagues turned out to be highly thought provoking.In the first of several such settings, after the expected but rather mundane talk of work, the conversations veered over to delicious banter over the local cuisine before inevitably arriving at the cricket World Cup, which was just around the corner.Now the Germans love their sport. From Football to Tennis and Athletics to Formula One, they speak with pride over the many accomplishments of their men and women in world sport. Not the ones to be bullied on home turf, the Indian group responded with stories of their passion for cricket.Overcome with curiosity, our German colleagues probed and what ensued was a 30-minute crash course that could well have been titled, Cricket - India’s favorite pastime.The World Cup provided our guests with several opportunities to watch the sport in its full flow. With every game they watched, our lunch room conversations became focused discussions on the minute aspects of the game, its laws included.Modes of dismissals, leg-byes, running between wickets and team combinations, among others, were frequently discussed and debated.Through the entire series of discourses, there was one common element that stood out was the complexity of the rules that govern the game. For those acquainted with cricket, frequent changes to a Super-over rule or the fielding restrictions, don’t seem like much of a talking point.But for those uninitiated, like our German colleagues, in this case, the sheer number of subplots that controlled the functionality of cricket seemed mind-boggling.A sense of perspective loomed thereafter. Cricket is perhaps one of the few games in world sport with multiple underlying principles. And while most of them, i.e. laws, play out as rudimentary actions, a closer look at them from the sidelines evokes a sense of bewilderment, if not a light chuckle.Here are five such elementary laws of cricket.

#5 Sprint between the wickets to score runs, but not when a boundary or six is struck

Running between the wickets doesn’t always amount to runs.

One must run between the wickets to score in cricket. Anyone that’s played the game will tell you that this is one rule that is never taught or discussed at large. It’s almost like breathing air and just as inhaling is never taught to an infant, running between the wickets is synonymous with the game and comes naturally to anyone that plays the sport.

The rule, titled Law 18, is rather straightforward - a batsman strikes the ball and crosses ends before the ball is retrieved to complete a run. Simple. Cross ends twice and you’ve scored two runs and cross ends thrice to have three runs against your name.

Similarly, should the batsman strike the ball hard enough for it to roll over the “boundary” and in the meantime, he crosses ends twice, he scores six runs – correct? Well, no quiet. That’s where the “running between the wickets” rule ceases to exist.

Instead, four runs are awarded for the supreme effort of striking the ball hard enough for it to reach the boundary and as it turns out, this supersedes the batsman’s perspiration inducing efforts of scoring via running between the stumps.

One school of thought might argue that batsmen shouldn’t be permitted to profiteer from a boundary hit by sprinting to score additional runs. And therefore, the rule. Agreed, there is an overbearing attempt to restore fairness to all things that occur on the cricket field by preventing any side from taking undue advantage of a situation.

But the exact opposite transpires when an over-throw races to the boundary. Should this scenario play out, the batsman is awarded four runs (thanks to a run-out attempt gone awry) plus the runs scored by the batsman by means of crossing ends. The contradictions are clearly visible.

Try explaining these scenarios to the uninitiated. If you’re not the one to be easily offended, chances are that you’ll be amused over the reactions it might elicit towards your beloved game.

#4 Runs off the body accounted for when attempting a stroke, but not when not attempting one

The umpire rules a “dead ball” if a batsman incorrectly claims a leg-bye.

The “Leg-bye” is a batting unit’s best friend. Occurring mostly when the ball is delivered down the leg-side, should a play-and-miss result in the ball ricocheting off the pads (or the hip), the batsman is entitled to scamper between the wickets and score.

That’s Law 26. But Law 26 has certain pre-conditions. As it turns out, for a leg bye to be legit, a batsman must be playing either a stroke or performing an action to the effect of avoiding getting hit.

Enter contradictions.

A batsman can’t run if struck on the pads while “shouldering arms” (as that amounts to not playing a shot) but can claim runs while struck on the pads when attempting to play a flick shot. The underlying intent is clear though.

The administrators are simply telling the batsman that the bat is the primary tool for run making. However, they are also implying that all efforts undertaken in the process of scoring runs with the bat will nonetheless be rewarded.

But one isn’t always looking to score when taking evasive action. So why offer runs when struck on the helmet when ducking a bouncer – there’s no bat being used and surely, there’s no attempt being made to hit a six when ducking.

But the contradiction at large here is pertaining to the tools being used (e.g. pads & helmets) and the actions (or inactions) associated with them that are so vital to run making. My German colleagues found it absurd that the pads can be used to score in one scenario and rendered illegitimate in another.

In football - they argued - a shot deflected into the goal off a defender (taking evasive action) stands as a goal and is never rendered illegal despite the defender taking evasive action and having never intended to put the ball into his own net. So why the disparity in cricket, they ask.

#3 Bowlers restricted to limited overs in ODIs and Twenty20s but not in Test Cricket

Bowling restrictions vary based on the format being played.

Cricket is perhaps one of the few disciplines in world sport that has multiple - internationally recognized - competitive formats. The need to satiate the appetite of an audience seeking dramatic cricketing action led to the creation of ODIs and later, Twenty20. And like most things in Cricket, these formats have regulations that are unique to each of them.

Test Cricket was originally designed to be a contest between batsmen and bowlers. And when played over a period of five days, teams attempt to bowl the opposition out – twice to be precise – while looking to concede the least amount of runs. And to aid the cause, a single bowler is permitted to bowl as many overs as they please.

Switch to ODIs and Twenty20 and you’ll find an upper limit being accorded to the number of overs that a bowler is allowed – ten in the former and four in the latter. Despite the primary objective of taking ten wickets staying unchanged, bowlers in the shorter formats bear the brunt of law makers desperately trying to ensure that no team has an unfair advantage by using a couple of bowlers that could bowl through the length of an entire innings from either end.

Imagine such a scenario in Football. What if the laws read, “To minimize the overwhelming impact of a center forward and a number 10, teams must field each of them for no more than 60 minutes in a game”? The outcome would be unimaginable – Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi being substituted after just 60 minutes, much to the dismay of cheering fans.

Hockey, for instance, features most teams playing penalty-corner specialists. Yet, there are no restrictions on the number of penalty-corners that the specialist can take. Similarly, American Football has a specialist “quarter-back” who plays the entire duration of the game unchanged. As is the case with Baseball, where the laws permit the same “pitcher” to send down every throw in all the nine innings of a ball-game.

Alas, there is no such luck for bowlers in cricket and its several versions. It is here that a bowler goes from “I’m feeling lucky” (when playing Tests where he can keep bowling till the cows come back home) to feeling like an albatross with wings clipped when playing limited overs cricket.

#2 Its called Leg-Before-Wicket (LBW), but should a batsman get struck on the body, he could still be given Out

An LBW verdict is controversial more often than not.

Law 36 is by far the most complicated and therefore, the most contested regulation in Cricket. Just as several environmental factors ought to conspire in unison to ensure a “snow fall”, the LBW is an event that plays out only if the cricketing gods are in perfect “alignment”.

The ball has to not just pitch in line with the stumps, but strike the batsman in line with the stumps as well. And in doing so, it ought to not be any higher than the height of the stumps and the interception must not be too far down the wicket so as to create doubt in the mind of the umpire over the impending trajectory of the ball. That is as close to rocket science that cricket can possibly get.

That such a law prevails and is left to the umpire’s human eye to discern over a split-second period is truly remarkable in itself. The complexity of the law is further validated by the several factors that are to be considered while playing out the “hawk-eye” drill prior to adjudication.

If these intricate elements were hard enough for my German colleagues to digest, they broke into spontaneous laughter at the mention of the infamous Sachin Tendulkar dismissal (in Australia to Glenn McGrath) as an example of a batsman being declared out-LBW despite not being struck on the legs.

Precision in terminology plays a vital role in the very construct of Cricket. Which is why you have an “in-swing”, “leg-cutter” and “cover-drive” among other correctly worded positions and occurrences in the game.

That the British invented the game makes it all the more important that the vocabulary used doesn’t undermine, if not mock, the very institutions of the game. Alas, in the case of the hallowed LBW law, the complexities notwithstanding, the slapdash terminology makes for amusing reading.

#1 Out handling the ball

Hands can be used both to score runs and get oneself dismissed.

The wrists and the gloves worn to protect them, form an integral part of a batsman’s armory. They act not just as protective gear but tools that aid run making. When a batsman fends off a bouncer with a glove, while holding the bat, he is entitled to score by virtue of the ball striking the glove and then reaching the boundary or his subsequent through running between the wickets.

Likewise, should the ball ricocheting off the glove be caught by a fielder, the batsman is adjudged out.

So on the face of it, the wrists or the glove, is a virtual extension of the bat and by all means a tool to defend and score in a game of cricket. Mohinder Amarnath perhaps echoed similar sentiments when batting at Melbourne in the second final of the World Series Cup in 1985-86.

But the ironies in the laws of cricket delivered a “googly” just when everything seemed loaded in favour of the Indian all-rounder.

When the ball rolled back towards the stumps and Amarnath instinctively stopped it with his hands, he inadvertently activated Law 33 and was adjudged out “handling the ball”. For all the thoughts of considering the wrists (and glove) as a scoring tool, the laws prohibit its use to “wilfully strike the ball with a hand not holding the bat”.

The connoisseurs of the game argue in favour of the rule while stating that using the hands to obstruct the ball provides the batsman an unfair advantage. The naysayers however, counter this by claiming that while runs off the glove are permitted, why not allow the use of hands to stop the ball from rolling back to the stumps. After all, how different can stopping the ball with a hand be from using a bat – they argue.

Regardless of point of the view, there’s no denying that a batsman’s wrists and their usage provided plenty of fodder for the lawmakers as they weaved their way into creating a rather unique mode of dismissal, which when effected, makes for a hilarious spectacle.