For more precision, MCC modifies the language of the non-striker run-out Law.
- When asked about the legality of attempting to run out a batter from the non-end, striker the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) conceded that there was room for interpretation. Because of this potential for misunderstanding, cricket’s rule-makers have revised the language of the laws. The MCC made the call after the incident between Adam Zampa and Tom Rogers, in which Zampa attempted to run out Rogers at the bowler’s end, but the two became entangled in the process.
- As Rogers retreated too far, the Melbourne Stars skipper flipped his arm and removed the bails during a BBL match. The TV umpire, however, deemed it not out since his bowling arm had already moved over the line where the ball was supposedly released.
- After the fact, the MCC issued a statement affirming the umpire’s interpretation of the rule and the legitimacy of his ruling. The MCC also identified “the highest point in that bowler’s action” as the instant the ball comes into existence.
The MCC approved the finalized language for Law 38.3 on Thursday, January 19th. Even though the legislative body specifically stated that this does not constitute a “material change to the meaning of the Law,” it nonetheless became law. According to Law 38.3.2, “even if the non-striker had left his/her ground before the instant at which the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball,” it is no longer possible for the bowler to run out the non-striker under this Law once the bowler had reached that point. - Despite the fact that players and umpires have generally had a clear understanding of this Law, we recognize that there is some room for interpretation. Because of this, MCC has proposed rephrasing the language of Law 38.3 to make it more clear. Some have interpreted the existing wording to mean that a Run out might occur at any time, even after the bowler had completed the bowling action, if the non-striker left his or her ground before the predicted point of release. Neither the original drafters of the law nor MCC ever intended for it to be construed that way.
- It should be emphasised that this does not alter the proper interpretation of the Law; in fact, it has been so understood for the previous six years with no confusion. On the other hand, hopefully, this will help things become more transparent.
