The bat that bounces

Law 30 has two working sentences. The first says a batter is out of the ground unless some part of the person or the bat is grounded behind the popping crease. The second says a batter who has grounded something behind the crease, and then loses that contact while running or diving on, is still in.

The second sentence exists because of the first. Without it, a bat that touched down and bounced would put a batter out of the ground between the bounce and the next contact, and a run-out completed in that gap would stand.

What the first clause requires

"Some part of his/her person or bat is grounded behind the popping crease at that end." Three words carry the weight. Grounded: touching the ground, not held above it. Behind: on the crease is not behind it, and Law 7 says the popping crease is the back edge of the marking, so the whole painted line is in front of it. And at that end: the ground is defined at each end separately.

The crease, in the Laws, is a line with no width. Law 7 says the popping crease "is the back edge of the crease marking". The paint has width; the crease does not. A bat grounded on the paint, anywhere short of its back edge, is grounded in front of the crease, and the batter is out of the ground with the bat touching the line.

"Person or bat" puts the two on equal terms. A foot, a hand, an outstretched glove or the toe of the bat all make the ground, and the clause about losing contact applies to each of them alike. The bat is not privileged in the text.

What the second clause protects

"In running or diving towards his/her ground and beyond, and having grounded some part of his/her person or bat beyond the popping crease, there is subsequent loss of contact." Two conditions. The batter must be moving towards the ground and past it, not standing at it. And something must have been grounded beyond the line first.

Meet both, and the loss of contact afterwards does not count: "between the ground and any part of his/her person or bat, or between the bat and person." That last phrase covers the bat leaving the hand as well as the bat leaving the ground.

What it does not protect

A batter who grounds the bat behind the line and then, standing there, lifts it, has not been running or diving towards the ground and beyond. The clause does not apply. A batter who dives and lands short, and whose bat then skids over the line, grounded nothing beyond the crease first. It does not apply.

The protection is for momentum, not for standing still. It is written for the batter who has done the thing the first clause asks and is then carried past it by the act of doing it.

Why one clause matters

A run-out is decided at an instant. The wicket is broken and the question is where the batter was at that moment. Law 30 supplies the answer, and without its second clause it would supply the wrong one for any batter whose bat bounced: out of the ground for the length of the bounce, in again on landing, and out if the bails went in between.

The clause converts a mechanical fact, contact lost, into a legal one, ground made. It does so by asking what the batter was doing rather than where the bat was. That is an unusual thing for a Law to ask, and it is the reason a run-out that looks close is often not close at all in the text.

None of it needs the instant the bails came off. It needs the sequence: was something grounded beyond the line, and was the batter moving through it. Both are questions about what happened before the wicket was broken, not at the moment it was.

Law 30, Batter out of his/her ground: MCC Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code →

Law 7, The creases: MCC Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code →

••••••

No. 2 in By the Book, a series of 17.

NextFour levels