Keeper encroaching

A controversial incident in the current one-day series between Australia and New Zealand has seen a batsman dismissed even though the wicket-keeper has acted unlawfully. The striker missed the ball, the wicket-keeper's gloves came partially in front of the wicket and the bails were removed - possibly by the ball, or possibly by the wicket-keeper's gloves.

The umpires confirmed that the striker was out Bowled. He was not, of course, but he had to go all the same. The issue of whether or not it was the ball that removed the bails is not important in this case, as the wicket-keeper's encroachment meant that the delivery should have been called a No ball by striker's end (square leg) umpire, under which circumstances the striker cannot be out Bowled, Caught, LBW, Hit wicket or Stumped.

Why was it a No ball? What does the Law say about it?
It seems only reasonable that the striker should be allowed to play the ball without interference by the fielding side, at least until the ball has passed the wicket. The Law ensures this is the case by requiring that, from the time the bowler starts his run up, the wicket-keeper is to remain wholly behind the wicket at his end until at least one of three conditions is fulfilled. They are:
           i) the ball passes the wicket
           ii) the ball makes contact with the striker's bat or his person
           iii) the striker attempts a run

If the wicket-keeper does not conform, i.e., if he encroaches, the umpire at striker's end is to call and signal No ball.
In the case in question there is no suggestion that the ball struck the bat or person of the striker. The wicket-keeper, having seen a video replay, acknowledges that his gloves did come in front of the wicket, so it should have been a No ball and, therefore, not out. Well, mistakes do happen. A pity, though.

By the way, there is one additional, interesting point. It is that the Law requires the wicket-keeper to remain behind the wicket; it does not say he must not come in front of it. So, other conditions being satisfied, level with the stumps is a No ball. Difficult to see, of course, but it does mean that if the umpire sees but the slightest bit of glove in front of the stumps, the encroachment is significant.



Read more about Law 34.3 (Hit the ball twice) and Law 40 (The wicket-keeper) at the MCC website