When Is A Batting Side All Out?
Tony Goodfellow | July 17, 2023
When I first started playing grade cricket for my old club Northern Suburbs, back in Canberra, during the seventies, this infamous match from March 4, 1967, was mentioned quite a lot.
Northern Suburbs were vying for a place in the semi-finals and in the last game of the regular season they had to beat Kingston, outright, over the four innings to squeeze the Australian National University (ANU) out of the top four.
Kingston was all out for 150 runs in reply to Norths first innings of 194 and batting for a second time, Norths declared at 5 for 59, leaving Kingston 71 minutes to score 104 runs for outright victory.
Kingston never accepted the challenge as during their run chase, two players, Booth and Gallagher, were called away and unavailable to bat. Kingston were 7 for 81, and holding out for a draw, with one ball to bowl.
The final ball possible of the innings culminated in the dismissal of the last available Kingston batsman at the ground. Time was called by the umpires and the two absent players were not required to go to the wicket, however, the Kingston captain Cec Clear entered the two players as absent and conceded outright victory to Norths, which ensured Norths a preliminary final spot, ousting ANU.
Or did it? By interpretation of Law 22 of cricket which states, “The result of a match may be decided by the game being given up as lost by one of the captains.”, it appeared that Norths had gained the maximum points, as the Kingston captain, Cec Clear, had nominated his last two batsman as absent, so handing the outright victory to Norths.
Consequently, ANU appealed against the win and an executive meeting of the ACT Cricket Association a few days later overturned the result, meaning ANU would contest the preliminary final.
ANU’s defence was based on Watson’s Index to the Laws of Cricket which seems to cover the circumstances of an absent batsman being declared “out”.
Watson’s Index stated, in full, “Unless he (an absent batsman) is a retired batsman to whom the opposing captain under Law 33 has refused consent to resume his innings, there is no Law of cricket under which even a known absent member of the batting side may be adjudged 'out' and so recorded in the scorebook before the moment arrives when he must take his place at the batting crease or forfeit his wicket.”
Legal jargon aside, this meant that the absent batsman, even though not at the ground, could not be declared dismissed and so the batting side was not all out.
Although not so well known these days, Watson's Index is published under the patronage of the NSW Junior Cricket Union as a text book for cricketers and is held in high repute by umpires.
The matter of a captain conceding the defeat of his side, as allowed for under Law 22 and as applied in the case of this match, is also open to interpretation, which leaves me with the question, when is a batting side all out?
?
