2004 Cowden Victory Officially Ratified by the ECB
Those involved in the game will remember this as a nail biting contest which had everything: runs, wickets, dropped catches, lost balls, wides, ugly swipes, rank long hops and Tom Fletcher playing for his average. However, ever since the match, the result has been shrouded in deep controversy. Today though, with the help of the English Cricket Board, the debate over the outcome can finally be put to rest.
Cast your minds back. On a blazing hot day in July, Cowden were rather surprisingly allowed to make first use of a good batting track. The Strollers bowlers responded positively though, and valiantly toiled away for 3 hours, in which time they did well to restrict Cowden to 169/6.
Initially optimistic of reaching this target, the Strollers made a horrendous start to their reply. The usual combination of rash strokes, silly run outs, and bad technique had put the Strollers in trouble, but when Tom Fletcher inexplicably missed a straight one attempting to mow the ball over cow corner on 100-8, the Strollers looked doomed.
However, the last wicket pair of Rick Bristow and Luke Fletcher had different ideas. With some delightful stroke play, reminiscent of Bradman in his pomp, and some intelligent running between the wickets, Strollers were put in sight of victory.
Then the moment of controversy. With 20 runs needed, and just 14 balls left , Fletcher called Bristow through for a bye to the keeper. For about the first time in the match, the keeper gathered the ball cleanly and proceeded to throw down the stumps with Fletcher 11 yards out of his ground. Cowden were jubilant, but Fletcher refused to budge. Before hitting the stumps, the ball had struck the bowler's water bottle, which he had left behind the wicket.
Arguments broke out, and after 10 minutes, with diplomatic relations between the sides hanging by a thread, it was decided to continue the game, and debate the incident in the pub afterwards. Some indifferent batting in the fading light followed, but the hero of the hour, Luke Fletcher smashed the last two balls of the match for four to seal the what seemed to be a memorable victory. But was it a victory? Or should Fletcher have been given out? Well, here’s the answer we’ve all been waiting for:
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Bristow [SMTP:rbristow@studygroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:57 AM
To: 'laws@mcc.org.uk'
Subject: A water bottle
Playing a game this Sunday, my batting partner stupidly called me to run a bye to the keeper. We set off for the run and the keeper threw the ball at the stumps. However, rather than directly hitting the stumps, the ball hit a water bottle (belonging to the fielding side) which was nestled between the stumps. The water bottle and/or the ball then broke the wicket with my batting partner a long way out of his ground. In this situation, should he be given out or should he, in accordance with law 18.6, be awarded 5 penalty runs as in the case where the ball hits a helmet belonging to the fielding side. I would appreciate it if you could shed light on this controversial moment in our game.
Kind Regards
Rick Bristow
From: Rachel Lee [mailto:Rachel.Lee@MCC.ORG.UK]
Sent: 11 August 2004 10:33
To: Richard Bristow
Subject: RE: A water bottle
Dear Mr. Bristow,
Thank you for your enquiry regarding an incident which took place in a recent game involving the ball hitting a bottle of water.
It is not possible to answer queries relating to incidents that have arisen from situations where an umpire has been lacking in application of the Law. MCC has to presume that umpires will apply the Law as written and will only deal with clarification and interpretation of Law on that basis. The problem with the water bottle should have been avoided, as the bottle should not have been on the field of play in the first place, especially in a position so likely to interfere with play.
Notwithstanding this important and overriding point, the matter would be considered as wilful fielding, under Law 41.2. A member of the fielding side had deliberately placed the bottle in a place that would more than likely interfere with play. Although the wicket-keeper did not deliberately manoeuvre the water bottle to intercept the ball it was nevertheless in the way of the ball being thrown at the wicket. As soon as the ball hit the bottle it would be considered Dead and no action thereafter would be considered, which would mean no possibility of dismissal of the batsman running towards the wicket. The procedures of awarding 5 penalty runs, informing and reporting as laid down in Law 41.2 would be brought into effect.
I trust this answer has helped to clarify the situation.
Yours sincerely,
Rachel Lee
Assistant to the Laws & Umpiring Consultant
So, although the real winner was cricket, Strollers can now officially put this down in the scorebook as a victory. This leaves the record against Cowden as P1 W1 D1, and nicely sets up a mouthwatering rematch in August this year.
Match Summary: Cowden 169/6 (A Finloe 2/9), Strollers 172/9 (L Fletcher 40*).