|
HOME
PAGE
CONSTITUTION ADMIN& RULES
CODE OF CONDUCT
LEAGUE
MEETINGS
OFFICERS
CONTACTS
COACHING
FIXTURES
RESULTS
TABLES
JOE
LUMB
LORD'S
TAVERNERS
UNDER
14 TOUR
POLICY
DUTY
OF CARE
HELMETS
FIELDING
REGULATIONS
FAST
BOWLING
UNFAIR
BOWLING
UMPIRES
CRICKET
LAW
CRB
CHECK PROCEDURE
ARCHIVES
|
H.W.D.J.C.L.
|
DUTY
OF CARE:-
The role of the Umpire
|
Under the law of the land there
is a legal maxim which states “Volenti
Non Fit Injuria”.
Simply translated, this means that those who
voluntarily participate can have no complaint in the event of injury. In
other words, if in the NORMAL course
of a match, a batsman or fielder (or umpire!) receives injury, that is
considered part of the risk involvement, voluntarily taken.
Certain facets of the Laws of
Cricket, however, arguably remove from the INDIVIDUAL
the element of
PERSONAL choice,
where decisions are taken on their behalf by either Captains or Umpires.
Of particular concern are Laws 3.7(Fair and unfair play) and 3.8(Fitness
of Ground, weather and light))
.
Umpires are reminded that the
law of the land, and particularly the law of Negligence, will ALWAYS
override the Laws of Cricket. It would not be a sustainable defense to
an allegation of “Negligence” to plead that an umpire was merely
applying the Laws of the game. There could be a potential argument that
all participating in the cricket match were voluntarily submitting
themselves to all the provisions of the Laws, but we are all aware of
the fact that many players, even at First Class level, have limited
knowledge concerning the finer points of the Laws.
Law 3.7 states that the umpires
shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play, and Law 42 elaborates upon the
question of “Unfair Play”.
Umpires are urged to strictly
enforce the provisions of Law 42, and in particular Laws 42.6 (fast
short pitched balls) and 42.7 (high full pitched balls).
If they fail so to do, and injury results, there could be a
potential liability against the umpire concerned
.
Law 3.9 states that a decision
by the umpires that conditions are unfit for play may be overridden by
the Captains, or the batsmen at the wicket, deputising for the batting
Captain. In the case of the umpires deciding to suspend play for bad
light, that decision may also be overridden by the batting side alone.
There is an increasing tendency in League matches, where much may hang
on the result by way of points or League placings for players to
exercise the options open to them, particularly in the case of poor
light. As has been previously stated, the law of the land is paramount,
and umpires cannot and must not seek to abrogate their responsibilities
by seeking refuge under the strict appliance of the Laws of Cricket.
When the point is reached where the Umpires, or either of them, form the
view that there is a real potential danger to players or officials, they
have a responsibility to all concerned to suspend or to terminate play.
It is appreciated that there may be considerable difficulty in deciding
when that point is reached, and also potential difficulty in clarifying
the situation with players. However, the umpires have a general
authority and responsibility for the conduct of the game, and to the participants. A decision has
to be made and implemented.
Broadly the legal experts agree
that umpires could be liable if it were shown that they had not
exercised due care but differ in detail as to what would
be interpreted as lack of due care by the umpire's) and how far an
umpire needs to go in exercising it. The first thing to point out is
that nothing has changed dramatically. Cricket is not a contact sport
like Rugby, nor is it so “rough”, but it is a tough game played with
a hard ball. Injuries are bound to occur from time to time in the normal
course of play. Providing the game has been correctly administered under
the Laws, with the exercise of a proper degree of care and
responsibility, such injuries cannot be blamed on the umpires.
The
difficult thing to interpret is “ a proper degree of care and
responsibility”.
Certainly umpires must be aware
of all the surrounding factors in judging whether conditions are fit for
play. What may be acceptable light conditions on an open ground, with a
good sight screen, a smooth pitch and a moderate bowler, will not be
good enough with a background of trees, or a sporting pitch, or an over
aggressive bowler, or an indifferent batsman.
The umpire should exercise his powers to intervene under Law 42.6(dangerous
bowling) sooner rather than
later, again having taken into consideration all the factors of light,
background, pitch and batting skill.
The judgment of what is
"fast" in applying Law 42.6 must be tailored to the context of
the game. The criterion is how much time the batsman has to deal with
such a delivery safely. The less skilful the batsman, the more time he
will need to react and the lower the threshold for "fast" must
be set.
In junior cricket, umpires
must be aware of the specific regulations for how close to the bat
fielders may be allowed to stand at various age levels and enforce these
limits strictly. Additionally, of course, the younger and less
experienced the player, in senior cricket as well as in junior cricket,
the more care must be exercised to protect the player concerned.
None of this however differs at
all from what is preached to umpires who attend official courses, and
have or seek qualification in the Laws of Cricket.
The position of a
person who is asked, or volunteers, to stand as umpire in a match
without qualification is extremely vulnerable and is less likely to
respond in a correct manner.
What could create a problem are
players, in the senior game, insisting on continuing to play in unfit
conditions, especially but not solely the batsmen in bad light. There is
no intention to deny them their right to do so this under Law 3.9(c), while
conditions are defined as "unsuitable"
If however a
point is reached where any reasonable person would judge that conditions
were unreasonable or dangerous, and that injury could result, then the
umpire must take steps to
prevent foreseeable injury by suspending play.
At junior level it is
not considered appropriate for captains to be given the option of
playing on in poor conditions. This is a matter for adults to decide
following consideration and discussion between Team Managers or in his
/her absence left entirely at the umpire's discretion.
Umpires should be aware of the instruction given in the ECB publication
"Keep your head" which reads "make sure that the
faceguard is adjusted so that the ball can't go between the helmet and
the faceguard (Grille)". This is of particular significance if a
junior player is observed taking to the field with an ill-fitting or
mal-adjusted faceguard and is exposed to a risk of preventable injury.
Injuries will occur in the game
of Cricket; players accept this by playing the game at all.
If umpires
do their job properly have an adequate knowledge of the Laws, exercise
proper judgment and err on the side of caution in administering those
parts of the Law referring to conditions of play, and to what may be
dangerous bowling, they should not be held responsible for such injury.
The consequences of not administering the Laws of the game correctly may
lead to claims of negligence being brought against the match official
and others. THE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION published on the 31st December
2002 gives details of a judgment made concerning a match officials
liability. This judgment arose from a claim brought by a player against
a referee and others. It was ruled that a referee of an adult amateur
owed the players a duty to take care for their safety when carrying out
his duties. The negligence claim was brought against an amateur rugby
referee and the Governing body, who accepted vicarious liability for the
referee. Mr. Justice Morland said "that in so far as the referee
could stop the risk of injury becoming reality by appropriate
application of the laws it would not be unreasonable to expect him to do
so. The rapport between referee and players was crucial to a good game
and there was no reason why that rapport would be lessened because both
referee and players knew that the referee owed a duty of care towards
the safety of players. As a matter of policy it was just and reasonable
that the law should impose upon an amateur referee of an amateur rugby
match a duty of care towards the safety of players. Such duty would be
breached if the claimant established that a match official failed to
take reasonable care for the safety of the players by sensible and
appropriate application of the laws of the game having regard to the
context and circumstances of a match."
Subsequently the player concerned, who was paralyzed for life can sue
the Governing body (WRU) for damages, the Court of Appeal ruled. The
player was playing as a substitute for an injured player and Lord
Phillips said that the experienced referee had failed to follow the
safety law of non-contested scrummage's, applied when an inexperienced
front row player is taking part. Although the players team had agreed to
contest the scrums, the referee had a duty of care to the players to
overrule the team's wishes.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ALWAYS HAVING PUBLIC LIABILITY COVER IS STRESSED.
Always check at the beginning of each new season that your Club or
League provides
you with such cover.
|
