We invite you to ask Cllr Matthew French to use his extensive knowledge to answer questions on cricket laws, opinions, and just about anything else come to that!

Q: Can you please clarify the new law regarding a batsman ‘backing up’ whilst the bowler is bowling?

We had a batsman running halfway down the track when Woody was coming up to bowl this Sunday just gone, Woody stopped and did not deliver the ball as though to warn the non-striking batsman who was 5 yards down the pitch!

I told him that he had my permission to run him out next time but then some people said that the law had changed and it was not possible to do this!  Surely with the batsman taking an unfair advantage the bowler is entitled to run out the non-striking batsman, especially after a warning has been given?

Tony Freeman, Sheen Common, just before tea, Sunday 26th July

The Umpire replies:
The only thing that has changed with this law is that the bowler must run the batsman out in his “delivery stride”, in other words instead of releasing the ball he carries his arm through and knocks the bails off. There has never been an obligation to warn the batsman just an etiquette. The other thing that could possibly happen is 5 penalty runs to the fielding side for “Batsman Stealing a Run”, that is very rare and complicated so I will explain it in detail next time I see you.

Q: Would it be possible to publish on our website all the expenses claims you have made whilst working as a Tory Councillor?
Steve Cooksley, Aylesford

The Umpire replies:
Yes if you go to the Ashford borough council website and follow the link you will find it all there.

Q: “A few weeks ago Beechwood were playing Horsmonden when the following occurred; the batsman on strike had a ‘runner’ and facing the penultimate ball of the innings, hit the ball to the mid-off area whereupon it was fielded and a ‘run out’ was made. The runner had left his ground and made it all the way to the non-strikers end whilst, at the same time, the non-striker started to run but then went back to whence he came!  Regardless of who was out and who would remain the Umpires decided that the ‘runner’ was still in and the non-striker was out. Now, the question is, therefore, after this decision, who should face the next delivery, the incoming batsman or the original striker who had never left his ground?  On the day, the decision was made that the incoming batsman was to go to the non-strikers end which was handy as it was the very last ball of the innings and, needing one run to win, as he was injured would have impeded his attempt to hit the ball single handed!”
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
I do know of this incident as Mr. Makin told me. It is hard for me to be initially sure who would be facing as I wasn't there however from what you have described to me it would depend on if the non striker and runner had crossed, and at which end the stumps where broken as the non striker was out. I can only assume they had therefore it should have been the in coming batsman that would face. It is hard to think when you have a runner but just go back to basics, forget the runner, just treat him like a batsman then you will have no problems when it comes to that type of incident in the future. I hope that's of help to you.

Q: Last week, after a wicket was taken a new Batsman came out and took guard.  The Umpire incorrectly told him that the action was Right Arm over when, in fact, the action was Left Arm Around! The Batsman then complained to the Umpire after defending the ball as he was bemused by the bowlers delivery action! The question is, therefore, what would have happened if the Batsman was out first ball after being given the wrong information by the Umpire?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Hi Tony, the answer is nothing other than he is making his way back to the pavilion, it is only courtesy that the umpire informs that bat of the bowler's action, the umpire is only required by law to ask the bowler for his action, if he refused to tell him then it would be a no ball, but there is nothing to say the umpire has to inform the batsman. To be honest if the batsman is watching the game before he comes out to bat he should know what the bowler is doing. I personally only inform a batsman of the action if he is facing the first ball of his innings, if he has been at the non striking end for a ball or so then I don't as he will know what he's facing.

Q: Please can you confirm the Law regarding ‘Obstructing the Field’, i.e. during a recent match, not Beechwood I hasten to say, the batsman who struck the ball called out “drop it” just before the bowler attempted to take the catch. This was most unsporting behaviour and, gladly, the catch was taken. However, if the ball had been dropped, upon appeal, what would the decision have been? Also, what would have happened had the non-striking batsman had called out these words or just verbally impeded the bowler by shouting out very loud and virtually ‘in the bowler’s ear’?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Yes you are correct; if either batsmen make any attempt to wilfully distract the fielder either in word or action then on appeal they will be given out "obstruction of the field". The important issue is WILLFUL. Both umpires would need to be confident that it was. Incidentally if a batsman is lawfully hitting the ball twice to guard his wicket he may still be given out obstruction of the field if he was preventing a catch being made.

Q: If a delivery from a quick bowler goes straight though to the wicket keeper who is standing back from the stumps and the batsman is standing out of his ground then, if the wicket keeper tries to throw the stumps down but misses and the ball then hits the batsman and bounces back onto the wicket whilst the batsman is still out of his ground what is the decision upon appeal?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Look at it logically; if you had the same scenario but instead of it hitting the stumps it after hitting the bat went over the boundary for four then it would be four, and indeed although can be seen as unsporting the batsmen are intituled to run provide of cause it was accidental. Therefore the answer is OUT, Run Out.

Q: If a bail or the bails fall off the wicket due to windy conditions just as the bowler releases the ball and then the delivery then goes on to clip or flatten the off stump is this out on appeal or is it a ‘Dead Ball’?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
This is again logical, the reason for having bails is to prove to the umpires that the stumps have been hit by the ball or by other means, so provided that the umpire is confident that the stumps have been hit by the ball, then the batsman will be given out bowled the fact that the bails fell off before the ball hit the stumps is irrelevant.This of course in a match would probably go unnoticed apart from the square leg umpire as bowled, batsman and wicketkeeper would be unaware of the fact that the bails came off before the ball hit the stumps. Therefore the answer is OUT Bowled.

Q: As the internet appears to be a good medium for councillors to get their point of view across without fear of retribution, I just wondered where you stand on the notion that people on benefits should be sterilized. A good or bad thing?
Steve Cooksley, Aylesford

The Umpire replies:
No Steve I don't! This is not 1930's Germany (not yet anyway, maybe if we have another 10 years of Labour!). I do however feel that we have a problem in Britain at the moment where people, especially if they have children, can get more money through benefits than they can working.

I feel that we do need to some how encourage people and employers to find ways of getting people off benefits. In my view it would be better for only one parent to work as you find that in general the mother is only really working to pay for the childcare; this seems stupid, I would rather have the state pay for a parent to stay at home than to have children brought up by strangers.

In the case of single parents, especially teenage mothers, I think the Dutch system is good, where all the single mothers in an area live in the same street or apartment block, and take it in turns to work and look after the kids; this shows to people (especially teenage girls) that they can't just get pregnant and think that the state will look after them for the rest of their lives, it also give both the mother and children a sense of community which in most cases is what they lack in the first place. I hope you can agree with some if not all of my views.

Q: If a batsman (at the striker's end) has a runner, can the runner leave the crease after the ball has been delivered but before it has actually been hit by the batsman? (That is, can the runner start towards the other end for taking a run while the ball is still on its way to the batsman?)
Kedar, Warminster, USA

The Umpire replies:
It is good to hear from someone across the pond, I wasn't aware that I had such a wide following!

Your question is a very good one, the laws don't state a lot about runners other that the fact that they are allowed and where they must stand when at the striker's end etc. If in the situation that you refer to I believe this to be ok, if however the runner is leaving his crease before the ball has be delivered then he would be subject to the Law 42.16 BATSMAN STEALING A RUN.

He can be run out by the bowler (LAW 24.4) but if no attempt by the bowler to run him out has been made then the umpire shall call and signal Dead Ball as soon as the batsmen have crossed, return the batsmen to their original ends, award 5 penalty runs, inform his colleague, the batsman and both captain when able and after the game report the incident to the Governing body.

Q: Matthew, please can you provide us with your valued opinion of Darrell Hair being reinstated on to the ICC Umpires Panel? To me, he should never have been dropped in the first place and the ICC should have backed him as he was correct. Did that 'match ball' that was allegedly tampered with all ever get shown to the press or has it been destroyed/locked away in the vaults at Lords?
Tony Freeman, in the office

The Umpire replies:
Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter because it is something I have very strong beliefs on. Firstly he should have never been banned; he would not have made the decision to award 5 penalty runs on his own: BOTH umpires would have come to the concussion that the ball was tampered with so why was Billy Doctrove let off any disciplinary bans!?

Secondly wouldn't the first thing that anyone would do in a case either the defence or prosecution would want to see the main evidence (the ball) - if the ICC were so sure that THE UMPIRES not just Darryl Hair were in the wrong then showing the ball at a press conference would be the first thing to do. Instead they used the fact the TV footage hadn't pick anything up, which although is surprising it doesn't in my opinion make it certain that it wasn't done.

I find it quite strange that the ICC are prepared to ban an umpire for over 2 years for abiding to the laws of cricket but only ban a player from 1 test and 2 ODI's for deliberately damaging the pitch (Shahid Afridi). The only puzzling thing is why Hair sent that e-mail to the chief of the ICC asking for a US$1M pay off; this seemed strange and did in my view show a sense of guilt, but never the less there was no evidence either way and that should be paramount.

The ICC should have backed him as the umpire’s word is final and as it quite clearly states in the laws "The Umpires will be the sole judge of fair and unfair play". There seems to be different rules for the sub continental sides, probably because they have got the most money!? I am however delight the Hair has returned to the ICC elite panel; I'm sure he had a wonderful time umpiring the likes of Bermuda, Holland, Canada etc the last few years but good on him.

Again though the ICC are being dictated to as he is unable to umpire any games involving Pakistan:- this should not be, this SHOULD have happened in the first place, if the ICC had simply said that Hair would not umpire any Pakistan games until the "dust had settled", that would have been the best way. What happens now if another Test side don't like a decision Hair makes are the ICC then going to take the same course of action?

Eventually we could end up with umpires being appointed by the Test side boards so umpires will then be beholden to the teams that they are umpiring and therefore be very reluctant to make any decision in case the players object. Haven't we been down this road before when they used to appoint home umpires for tests?

Q: Sachin Tendulkar developed bad cramps during his recent 1-day innings v Oz. He fought through it and was ok a few overs later. However, if he had opted for a runner, would he have been obliged to keep the runner for the remainder of his innings or would the runner have been sent off when he recovered? As a follow up, is it the umpire's or batman's decision?
Tim Johnson, Deutschland

The Umpire replies:
The answer to this is yes, the runner would have to leave the field once the batsman has made a full recovery. The decision of the runner is the umpire's, if they feel that the batsman doesn't need or no longer needs a runner then they will ask the runner to leave the field, permission for a runner must be sorted by the umpire. In the situation that Tendulkar was in it would be unlikely that a runner would be asked for as it was not an injury and law 2.7 states INJURED BATSMAN - I do not see cramp as an injury, just something caused by tiredness and dehydration, therefore can be quickly relieved and would not be a reason for a runner, the batsman could leave the field get treated and then return after the fall of the next wicket.

Q: England scored 158 in there 2nd ODI against NZ. How can the score be increased to 165 through the 'Duckworth Lewis' method of calculating scores from rain-affected matches? Surely a team's score can only be reduced due to the loss of overs!
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
This is everybody's worst nightmare Duckworth Lewis, or D/L as it is usually printed at the bottom of scorecards, is a. calculation made at the time of the stoppage, it takes into consideration the run rate and the amount of wickets at the end of each over, therefore sometimes if a team is scoring slowly and losing wickets you can find that the target is greater than the original score set.

For full details go to: DUCKWORTH LEWIS

Q: During the 1st Twenty/20 match between New Zealand & England the score was reduced by 1 run at the interval. Is it the Umpire who keeps the score and is his say so final? Also, if the scorebook balanced from where would the run be deducted? It would be a bit awkward if a batsman had just scored a ton only for it to be reduced by 1 run at the Tea Interval!
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Thanks Tony, for this, it's an interesting one. Umpires are not obliged to keep the score, however most do, it is expected however for the umpires to check at every interval lunch, tea etc to check the score along with overs and wickets are correct. It is however the scorers responsibility for the accuracy of the score. The umpires would not be expected to get involved with score disputes unless their was a major discrepancy that was very clear. I did not see the NZ v ENG game so am unable to comment on it. However I would be almost certain that the deduction of the run would have been decided by the scorers and not the umpires. It is initially up to the scorers where they would put a missing run, in general with two scorers they will be able to find it by comparing books if they can't or there is only one scorer it will generally be put under leg byes as it is the least controversial. The answer to you final question is quite simply yes it would be! If the scorers when totting up the book at tea find that the batsman is only on 99 then it stands, I can only say that the batsman would probably not buy the scorers a drink in the bar after the game!

Q: If the ball strikes the pad and then ballons up in the air, is the batsman, if he is quick-witted enough, then allowed to hit the ball away for runs bearing in mind that the ball is still 'live'. Even if the ball lands on the ground are you allowed to hit the ball in the quest for runs and not just to defend your wicket?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
The answer is quite simply no, this will be classed as hit the ball twice LAW 43.1 and will on appeal be given out. A batsman can only strike the ball for a second time to defend his wicket once the batsman has made contact with the ball, he then loses any rights to hit the ball second time in order to gain runs. However a batsman can run if after hitting the ball twice lawfully i.e. to guard his wicket, and overthrows then result the batsman may run.

Q: A batsman was bowled yesterday (Beechwood v Farnborough) after being hit directly on the pads in front of the wicket. The umpire said that he would have given the batsman out LBW had it not hit the stumps. Can a batsman, therefore, be given out before the ball strikes the stumps and bowls him?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Again No, bowled precedes all other ways of being out, LAW 30.2, the fact that in the opinion of the umpire he would have been out lbw had it not hit the stumps is irrelevant.

Q: In the recent match between Beechwood & Tenterden you gave a 'No Ball' for the bowler bowling a ball which bounced twice. Has the law recently changed as I thought the law stated that the ball must bounce more than twice?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Yes you are right, Law 24.6 states that the ball needs to bounce three times before reaching the popping crease before it is deemed to be a no ball. In the case that you are referring to, yes the ball did only bounce twice, but it then rolled along the ground therefore the no ball still applies under the same law. (Ball bouncing more than twice or rolling along the ground).

Q: What's this jellybean palaver in the test match all about? They said on the TV that they didn't think there was a specific cricketing law regarding jellybeans but we thought if anyone would know you would. (Maybe if Amy is taught the laws of cricket now, she can explain them to her dad - it's about time he learnt some)
Karen and Amy Kelly, Orpington

The Umpire replies:
Thank you Karen and Amy for this question, I'm sure the jelly bean incident must be of some bemusement to those people who don't follow or understand the game of cricket. Primarily the jelly bean saga is mainly about the 'Sprit of the Game'; this is not law as such but is seen by the authorities of cricket as an integral part of the laws. As a player you are expected to respect your opponents, your captain and team mates, the role of the umpires and the game's traditional values.

What England did by placing jelly beans on the wicket was not showing respect to India, however there where and are many instances in Test Match cricket that could be seen as against the 'Sprit of the Game' which sadly go unnoticed and now just seen as part of the professional game.

I personally think that the jelly bean incident was just a talking point for the press and there were far more serious incidents in the game such as Sreesanth's beamer and massive no-ball that were brushed aside when they should have been dealt with more severely.

Q: During our recent match versus Pinewoods, Keith had a stumping given when the ball bounced back off his cricket helmet on to the stumps. I am aware that you can not be caught off a helmet but should this stumping have been given or was the batsman wrongly given out?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Yes Tony, the batsman should not have been out, althought a batsman can be stumped if the ball bounces off any part of his person or pads it does exclude the helmet and as a catch should be given NOT OUT. Once the ball hits the helmet of any fielder it can not be out in any way.

Q: I vaguely remember hearing recently that the 'Mankad' law, whereby a bowler may run out a batsman who has backed-up to far, had been amended or even repealed. Is this correct and, if so, can you comment on the reason for the amendment?
Tim Johnson, Graz, Austria

The Umpire replies:
The law has slightly changed in regards that the bowler must attempt to run out the batsman (non striker) before his delivery stride i.e. before placing his back foot down, and he must either throw the ball at the wicket or stop and remove a bail, he is not allowed to go through with his bowling action, this is because the batsman is allowed to leave the crease on the point of delivery and it would be natural to think that the bowler once in his delivery stride would deliver the ball. It is seen as gentlemanly to give the batsman a warning before running him out in this manner, it is not however in the laws and any appeal would be upheld. There has been a new law that came in, in 2000 which deals with batsmen stealing a run which deals with batsman being unsporting rather than the batsmen being a bit 'quick off the blocks' which involves awarding 5 penalty runs to the fielding side, should the bowler not decided to attempt to run either batsman out. I hope that gives you some clarification.

Q: Can you please let me know the 'old' Back Foot No Ball Law they keep on mentioning on Test Match Special as, ever since I have been playing I have only known the Front Foot Law?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Yes Tony, as you will be aware there are two horizontal lines on the crease the front line is known as  the popping crease and the back line is called the bowling crease.   Simply the old back foot law was that your back foot had to land behind the bowling crease, the law was changed because alot of bowlers had developed a way to slide their font foot along way therefore giving the an unfair advantage.

Q: With regard to the No Ball for Dangerous and Unfair Play if a 'Beamer' is bowled, is above waist height a 'Beamer' when bowled at a medium/ fast pace and should we, as club players, all warn the bowler, Captain and other umpire immediately after a delivery of this type has been bowled. The reason I ask this is because I saw plenty of 'beamers' bowled this weekend and not a single warning was issued, some of these deliveries could have been very dangerous. Personally I think that the ECB should make a firm statement to ensure that as part of the Laws of Cricket the official warning should automatically follow a 'beamer' which constitutes Dangerous and Unfair Play.
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
You must umpire to the law of cricket regardless of whether you are an 'offical umpire' or a player standing for a few overs yes a warning must be given and the proceedure carried out  as Law 42.6 status. The ECB can do no more that what the laws state the more umpires that do it the more players will get used to it and less problems will occur, if you do not want to umpire to the laws of cricket then either don't umpire or agree before the match that some laws may be ignored, this is something however I would not recommend in this case, what I would recommend though is that you as a club (Beechwood) buy a copy of the laws or better still Tom Smith's and keep it in your kit bag so when challenged you will have it there, remember you can not be wrong as an umpire if you are enforcing the laws correctly.

Q: Last Saturday whilst umpiring one of the fielders "jokingly" called the batsmen through for a single, of which although they didn't run, could well have. Would this officially call me to make either a no-ball decision, a five-run penalty or would I have had to give the run out should they have ran?
Steve Cooksley, Director of Cricket, Beechwood Village

The Umpire replies:
This is something that could be a 'hot potato' , Law 42.5 is the law you need to look up DELIBERATE DISTRACTION OR OBSTRUCTION OF THE BATSMAN. The first thing you will need to decide along with your colleague is whether it was as the law states, deliberate, if so then yes, five penalty runs to the batting side all runs that have been completed plus any in progress shall be added the batsman will of course not be out and they are allow to decide who will face the next delivery. That is the official route, however I would suggest that in your capacity as a player umpire that you should speak to the captain of the fielding side and ask him to withdraw the appeal he being an honourable man as all captains are, under the spirit of the game would of course agree to this. If he didn't then of course follow through with law 42.5 but this would be harder for you to do as a playing umpire hence the 'hot potato', but again the law is the law and you as the umpire must uphold them.

Q: If a fielder catches a ball on the boundary but another player in the vicinity but just over the boundary's edge is in contact with the catching fielder, i.e. the other fielder was also attempting the catch, would this attempted catch be legal bearing in mind the other fielder could be assisting by keeping the 'catcher' on the field of play?
Tony Freeman, Liddypool

The Umpire replies:
Thanks for that question a good one! I believe if the other fielder was not aiding the catcher then I think that the catch would stand. However under Law 32. 3 a(ii) (page 210 of Tom Smith) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary. I would award 6 runs, if after consultation with my colleague we both believed that the fielder was aiding the catcher.

Q: I understand that the Association of Umpires & Scorers has had a ‘break away’ with several Umpires leaving to start up a new Association, is this correct and now that you have fully qualified as an Umpire will you be joining the ‘Rebels’ or staying with the ‘Old Guard’?
Tony Freeman, Liverpool

The Umpire replies:
The reports in the papers regarding the ACU&S can be best explained by referring to the website http://www.acus.org.uk/websitenoticev2.pdf - this will make it clear.

I am a member of the ACU&S and will continue to be,  in which ever form it may take in the future.

Q: I would be interested to know of the ‘incident’ in the Nomads v Hastings match referred to in your earlier answer to a question?
Tony Freeman, Liverpool

The Umpire replies:
I don't really want to talk much about the incident in the Nomads v Hastings match, only to say it would have been nice to be able to call on the third umpire for a decision!

Q: Many congratulations on your well deserved promotion to fully Qualified Umpire status. Now, Cameron is a smack-head, Kennedy drinks like a fish. What dark secrets or personal vices will trip up your political career?!
Terry Urben, Sussex

The Umpire replies:
Unfortunately Terry, I'm too much of a goodie goodie to ever really be able to be truly successful in politics, However if my confession to you regarding an incident in the Nomads v Hastings match ever got out, I've no doubt it will be the end of my umpiring career!

Q: Why in your England team have you awarded the soubriquet "sir" to Walter Hammond?
Mark Baker, Here and There

The Umpire replies:
Sorry Mark, I do appear to have made an error. I think it because I'm so
used to these days where this Labour Government gives out Knighthoods and medals like Tuffty badges! I've no doubt that if Wally was in the current England team he would have received a Knighthood, providing he changed his name of course, to one that is more politically correct like Wayne or even WH336*

Q: Frenchy, Since we all know your career top score was 21, I am interested in what your career best bowling performance was?
Fred Pearman, St.Michaels

The Umpire replies:
My career best-bowling was achieved in the same year as my batting 1997 it was at St Lawrence Seal where I bowled 6 overs, 1 maiden, 27 runs for 3 wickets. A year later I missed out on a five for when 4 catches including a caught and bowled were dropped off my bowling so it was only had 1-12 rather than 5-12!

Q: There is no mention in the laws regarding wear of a box in anyway shape or form. Therefore, I would suggest that as there is no mention of a box, our batsman wasn't in the wrong wearing one outside of his trousers because according to the laws a box doesn't exist, so as it doesn't exist it cannot be worn improperly.   You will be pleased to know I have ordered the latest Tom Smith from Amazon.
Steve Smith, Lewisham

The Umpire replies:
Laws 2 .1 substitutes & runners. It states in Tom Smith's under Fundamentals of the law, bullet point 3 (He must wear similar external protective equipment as the injured   player for whom he is running including a helmet if applicable.) Last line says quote" Any internal protection such as a box or thigh pad is not included in this clause". I hope this has finally clarified any outstanding queries.

That's enough - no more please Mr Smith! - The Web Editor

Q: Matthew, Thanks for your answers. My second point is cleared up. Unfortunately I only have the 1998 version of Umpiring and Scoring, but does the latest edition make specific mention of a protective box and whereabouts (internally or externally) it should be worn?  For instance, could it be worn (presumably if it has air holes) over the nose and mouth by someone who can't afford a protective helmet or by someone who doesn't like wearing a grill with the helmet?
Steve Smith, Lewisham (not Catford apparently!)

The Umpire replies:
There is no mention in the laws regarding wear of a box in anyway shape or form; it does mention the wearing of the protective helmet, this is for the use of wearing on the head. The box therefore I would suggest that if a batsman was to wear a box instead of a helmet he would be open to ridicule, which is something that no batsman should want, however it doesn't appear to be illegal so if the batsmen wants to look like a prat he can!

Q: Matthew, In Shooters Hill's match against Tenterden on 21st August you disallowed one of our batsman to take guard because he was wearing a protective box outside of his trousers.  I can find nothing in the laws regarding this matter and would suggest that you were wrong on this occasion, also by entering the field of play he had commenced his innings and even though it was wrong of you to disallow him to take guard, it was also wrong to allow another batsman to take his place. He could have changed within the three minute period allowed between wickets falling, but would he have been timed out because he was wrongly sent from the field in the first place?
Steve Smith, Catford

The Umpire replies:
It clear states on page 328 of Tom Smith's new cricket umpiring and scoring manual (the Umpires Bible) that external protective equipment for a batsmen are helmets, batting pads, batting gloves and if visible, forearm guards. Therefore I was correct. I clearly told the batsman that he had 3 minutes to put in box on correctly; I also think that the fielding side would not have appealed had he gone over the allotted time. The batsman decided to return to the pavilion and the new batsman came out, technically he was retired out. However as it was only a friendly match the fielding side were quite happy to allow him to continue his innings once a wicket had fallen.

Q: We have had Neutral Umpires in Test Matches for a number of years now.  Prior to this do you think that the 'Home' umpires standing in Test Matches remained impartial or were they favouring the country of their origin and if so who, in your opinion, were the guilty umpires/countries?  Also, do you think that neutral umpires have improved the conduct in the game?
Tony Freeman, Twickenham

The Umpire replies:
I don't necessarily think that "home" umpires were in anyway biased towards the home country, although I feel that it can seem that way, my experience is that this is the case, every umpire makes mistakes (Yes Tony even me!). If you are seen to be the Home Umpire then their is a tendency to believe there is favouritism; imagine what the Aussie Press would have made of Steve Bucknor's decision on Martyn's lbw if he had been a English Umpire!

I do think that neutral umpires have improved the conduct in the game, however there are not enough of the experienced umpires around to do the amount of Test Cricket that there is. I also feel that it would be easier for both players and umpires if the ICC appointed two umpires for the whole Test Series instead of the two on-one-off rotation that there appears to be now.

Q: If the batsman facing receives a delivery that knocks him off his feet and the ball is heading for the stumps, with the batsman unable to prevent the ball from hitting the wicket but able to use his hand to prevent the bails from falling off what is the decision? Alternatively, what if the bat were used to prevent the bails from falling off?
Tony Freeman, Twickenham

The Umpire replies:
If that situation happened and there was an appeal from the fielding side, I would firstly consult my colleague, then I would be mindful to give the batsmen out obstruction of the field. The batsman has the right to deflect or stop the ball with his person or bat other than his hand in order for it not to hit the stumps, but it is entirely a different thing to stop the bails from falling off should the ball strike the stumps. I would be interested in any other views from umpires.

Q: Do you think that players should 'walk' when they know that they have edged the ball behind, or should they wait for the Umpire's decision and if in their favour stay put at the crease no matter how uncomfortable the opposition make it?
Tony Freeman, Twickenham

The Umpire replies:
I strongly believe that batsmen should walk if they know they are out, it is the "sprit of the game"; some players believe that they should let the umpire make the decision because that's what he's there for! The job is hard enough without having to make decisions that in general are clear cut, also batsmen don't make any friends for themselves if the bowler and fielders "know" that he was out, he could expect to get a few short pitched deliveries and a lot of con appeals for the rest of his innings.

Q: Duckworth Lewis regulations are an absolute minefield. But what do make of Emile Durkheim's Theory of Anomie? Do people who live in cities automatically lose personal identity and therefore become depressed? And my wife asks where was the best cricket tea you have had?
Terry Urben - Secretary, SCL Umpires

The Umpire replies:
No I do not think that people lose their personal identity if they live in cities, in fact I believe the opposite is true; it is far easier for individual to express themselves in a large town or city than in a small town or village. If you where to walk down Tenterden high street in a sari or a kilt for example you would get a few funny looks, however in London people can freely walk round in various types of attire without people batting an eye lid.

I have to say that the best teas I have had are at Tunbridge Wells Borderers - they are fantastic, although I have heard that Steyning have very good ones, but as yet have not witnessed them for myself.

Q: Law 36 deals with LBW. But in fact my question is do you think that the First & Second World Wars were in reality the same conflict separated by a 20 year ceasefire?
Terry Urben - Secretary, SCL Umpires

The Umpire replies:
Yes Terry, in part I do, the depression that was coursed in Germany during the 1920's made it much easier for some like Hitler to get into power. If we had today's thinking the second world war may never of happened, by splitting the country in half like we did in 1945 meant that Germany could never be a powerful nation again, even when it was unified in 1988 the east was so much poorer than the west it has allowed the nation to distribute the wealth evenly and with European unification has ensured that a war on that scale in Europe will never happen again.

Q: Is there a cricket law governing the attire of umpires?  For example, if someone with a basic knowledge of cricket had the opportunity of umpiring a "friendly" match, but was only wearing their underpants, could they legitimately grant an LBW appeal?
Mr & Mrs Kelly Jnr, Sunny Sorrento, Italia

The Umpire replies:
The Answer to the question is Yes! It clearly states in the preamble what the Umpire Dress should be. There is now two types of reconised wear:

Casual On Field Wear
Dark Trousers preferably black or navy
White polo shirt
Windcheater also in white
or
Traditional/Formal On Field Wear
Dark Trousers preferably black or navy
White (or pastel coloured) shirt
Tie
White Umpire Coat
Pullovers worn underneath coat should be of a cricketing nature ie cream or white avoid dark colours.

Shoes: White trainers

It is important that both umpires are dressed the same. Umpires can opt to remove either their coats or their ties on very hot days. 

Q: When a change of bowling occurs is the umpire required to tell the batsman even if the action is going to be the same?
Adrian Warner, Chelsfield

The Umpire replies:
It is made quite clear in Tom Smith's that the umpire must ascertain the mode of delivery of the bowler, therefore common sense will tell you that you must inform the batsman of it, however it is the bowlers responsibility to tell the umpire if he wishes to change his mode of delivery. As umpire you cannot assume that a bowler has a mode of delivery just because he has bowled before or is standing in a particular place.

Q: What is a rectro movement, nothing anatomical I hope!!!
Sean Cowell, Worthing

The Umpire replies:
Rectro Movement is not anatomical you'll be pleased to know! It simply means liking fashions or styles of previous eras mainly the 60's and 70's these often merge with youngsters who like to wear the style of clothes of parents or older people who like to be reminded of their youth.

Q: Have you started to save up for my fixers fee (liquid and substantial) for my good offices in securing your place on the Sussex County Umpires Panel, old chap?
Sean Cowell, Worthing

The Umpire replies:
Yes of course!
And I am very much looking forward to my first season on the Sussex League Panel.

Q: Do you have a wedding present list?
If not, which shop would you like vouchers from?
Mrs Kelly (Junior), Orpington

The Umpire replies:
No we don't have a wedding list. We are hoping to go to South Africa next year so are asking for donations

Q: Now that cricket is becoming a truly international sport, can you appeal for LBW's, catches etc in different languages, rather than just a "howzat?".  For example, when you are umpiring in Ibiza this year, and their main fast bowler screams "¿cómo es eso?" at you, is that an acceptable appeal?
Steve Cooksley, St Paul's Cray

The Umpire replies:
"Quoting from Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and scoring (the Bible) "Any form of question that it asks the umpire to give a verdict is acceptable. The normal question is "how's that?". However any variation is suffient for the umpire to deem that a question has been asked and he is required to give an answer. Therefore "como es eso" provided I believed from the body language of the players it was an appeal I would give an answer."

Q: Given that "Alternative" bands such as Franz Ferdinand and Razorlight had great success at both the NME awards, as well as the more mainstream Brits Awards evening, do you think that music is moving back to more of a guitar-orientated pop/rock culture we saw with the "Brit Pop" explosion of the early 90s, or is this just a calculated move by the record companies to distance themselves from the "manufactured band" craze that they initially created, and is now becoming quite embarrassing.
Steve Cooksley, St Paul's Cray

The Umpire replies:
"This is entirely my view, I feel that there is a rectro movement amongst young people today, where music is just a small part, many under 30's listen to bands such as the Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin etc, so these new bands have been formed from them, some people may argue that Oasis have modelled themselves on The Beatles?"

Do you have a question you would like the Umpire to answer?

Remember, it need not be cricket-related (Form now working properly again).

Visit The French Connection