Time wasting by batsmen

Some of the batting habits displayed by England batsman Jonathan Trott have caused speculation as to whether he might be wasting time and whether the umpires should take some action.

It would appear that the Laws of Cricket leave very little room for doubt. Law 42.10 says that it is unfair for batsmen to waste time (fielders get similar treatment in Law 42.9) and that, in normal circumstances, the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to start his run up. A first offence warrants a slap on the wrist – to be more accurate, a warning – and any further offence by any batsman in that innings sees a 5 run penalty awarded to the fielding side and is to be reported by the umpires. But is it really so straightforward? No! It never is.

The umpire has much to consider. The striker has a right to be able to take up the guard that he wants; he has the right to be settled at the crease; he has the right to make sure he knows where the fielders are. He also has the duty to ensure that none of these things takes longer than is necessary, and that is where the umpire has his difficulty. Of course, he can always quote the letter of the Law and start the punishment routine right away, but he must apply some reason and some common sense. Umpires sometimes speak of Law 43 (there are 42 Laws!), the law of common sense. That great umpire and expert on cricket Law, the late Nigel Plews, defined Law 43 as the common sense application of Laws 1 to 42. The umpire has to apply the Law – that is why he is there – but must do it with common sense. To jump in at the first opportunity, finger wagging, will lose him the respect of the players. He must be certain that what he is asking from the players is consistent with the Spirit of the Game as well as with the letter of the Law. Above all, he must allow play to proceed in a normal manner, with latitude to allow players to deliver their best.

Perhaps, therefore, the amount of time required by Jonathan Trott in preparing to receive the ball is an acceptable part of the game and the opposition should not be annoyed by it and the umpires should smile benignly and ignore it. This writer believes otherwise. If one batsman can do it, so can they all. Too much time is wasted; the number of overs bowled per day is pitifully few and it could be argued that spectators are not being given value for their money. Test cricket is not well supported; it is a pity that might, if things get worse, become a tragedy. An attack on one batsman’s quirks may make very little difference, but it could be the catalyst for a change in attitude by self-centred professional entertainers.