Cricket history: Bizarre problems umpires faced, and how they changed the rules of cricket

If team 1 makes 69 runs in a 20-over match and team 2 makes 29 runs in two overs before the game is halted due to rain, how many more runs does team 2 need to win when play resumes? (Representational image by Acabashi via Wikimedia Commons 4.0)

Umpiring is a thankless job. The men in white coats perform a job as important as anyone on the field, yet seldom get noticed unless they commit a mistake. It can be a lonely job as well, particularly today, when social media trolls are eager to pounce upon every mistake.

To add to that, there have been bizarre situations throughout the history of cricket where the umpires had to take unusual decisions.

The width of a bat

The early cricket bats used to be curved (they resembled hockey sticks), but by the 1760s, they began to resemble their counterparts of today.

All went well until a match at Laleham Burway in 1771, when Thomas White of Chertsey walked out to bat against Hambledon with a bat as wide as the wicket.

Ever wondered why the maximum allowed width of a cricket bat is 4.25 inches? (Photo by Yogendra Singh via Pexels)

It is not clear why White did what he did. It might have been a joke. He might have been serious. Whatever it was, he was within the Laws of Cricket, for there used to be no restriction on the size of the cricket bat. There was little the umpires could do.

The Hambledon cricketers obviously protested. Three years later, the MCC updated their laws to restrict the breadth of the bat to four and a quarter inches.

The non hat-trick

For a long time, there used to be two stumps – off and leg – with one bail on top. To quote the laws verbatim, “the stumps must be twenty-two inches, the bail six inches long.”

At the Artillery Ground, Finsbury, in 1775, ‘Lumpy’ Stevens of Kent, the greatest bowler of the era, was bowling to John Small of Hambledon, the greatest batter of the era in a five-a-side match.

Beating the bat of Small was no ordinary feat, but Stevens did it thrice in a row. Not only that, on all three occasions, the ball passed through the stumps.

The umpires were helpless, for the ball had not hit the wicket, and Small was not out. ‘Lumpy’ was livid – and rightly so, for he deserved the wicket.

Many sided with him. The third stump came into being. However, it was not for a few decades that the laws accommodated it.

All in the mind

In 1870, James Southerton of Surrey was batting against the MCC at The Oval. He cut the ball hard, and W.G. Grace held the ball on the bounce at short point.

No one appealed. The umpires did not think he was out either. But for some reason known to himself, Southerton thought he had been a clean catch, and walked.

What to do? The umpires tried to recall him, but Southerton was adamant. Upon much deliberation, the umpires conveyed their decision to the scorers, who initially wrote “J. Southerton, retired thinking he was out, 0”. Over the years, that was updated to “retired out”.

The missing run

At Leyton in 1932, Herbert Sutcliffe and Percy Holmes added 555 runs for the opening stand, going past Jack Brown and John Tunnicliffe’s previous First-class record of 554, set in 1898.

Yorkshire declared immediately afterwards – but the Essex innings began half an hour later, because of a confusion. While the scoreboard showed 555, the two scorers – who could not see the scoreboard – had calculated 554.

The fans and journalists at the ground were obviously clueless, but the scorers were adamant they hadn't made a mistake.

Then ‘Tiger’ Smith, one of the umpires, insisted that he had missed a no-ball from Essex bowler Arthur Daer. The scorers probably understood why Smith made such a claim, but they reluctantly agreed.

Where is the non-striker?

Yet another Essex-Yorkshire incident. In 1935, Essex were chasing 332 when Yorkshire fast bowler Bill Bowes wreaked havoc. From 39-1, Essex slipped to 41-4 when Bowes’ over was done.

The legendary Hedley Verity came to bowl the next over, to Stan Nichols, who immediately hit a six. There was nothing unusual in that, barring the fact that the next batter had not yet arrived.

Charles Bray walked out and took his place at the non-striker’s end. By then, the umpires had been deep in conversation: what to do with the six Nichols had hit when there was no non-striker?

It had to be removed, was the verdict. An annoyed Nichols got out next ball.

(Representational image by Yogendra Singh via Pexels)

A bizarre declaration

Kent were hosting Middlesex at Tunbridge Wells in 1963. Middlesex batters Bob White and Ron Hooker were at the crease at stumps on the penultimate day.

The Monday morning traffic was heavier than usual. The local Kent cricketers had made it in time, but for Middlesex, the count read only three: White, Sid Russell (already dismissed), and twelfth man Ted Clark.

There was no way for the innings to get underway. Yet, the umpires could not award the match to Kent, because Middlesex had representatives at the ground, even if it was just three players.

Had Middlesex captain Colin Drybrough been around, he might have declared the innings closed. In his absence, the umpires “closed the Middlesex innings” – the first instance of umpires declaring an innings in First-class cricket.

Winning without playing

The Perth Scorchers had been bowled out for only 69 in a Big Bash League (BBL) match of 2012/13. In response, the Melbourne Stars were 29-0 after two overs when it rained.

As the crowd waited, the umpires announced at 7.35 pm that the match would resume at 7.51 – and the Stars would get five overs.

However, there was a problem. The Duckworth-Lewis par score for the Stars was only six runs, and they had already scored way more than that. If the Stars indeed batted, what would their target be? How many runs would they need to win?

The match referee finally decided that the Stars batters would have to come out for one ball and, since the target had already been achieved, they would win. Rob Quiney faced a ball from Hilton Cartwright, and the match was over.

However, the decision was against the BBL Playing Conditions 12.6.2.b (iii) (“to constitute a match, a minimum of 5 overs have to be bowled to the team batting second subject to a result not being achieved earlier”).

The Stars should have won without having to bat again. Cricket Australia later admitted the error. The redundant ball bowled by Cartwright was expunged from databases.