Priston Vs Venturers, Sunday May 2nd

Priston 180-6, Venturers 184-6

In which Ritvij reaches a personal milestone; Simon invents a new way to get out; and the Laws of Cricket are stretched in unexpected directions.

Priston is a classic English village ground. You get hopelessly lost on the way there. Simon won the toss and fielded, despite our having only eight people: Alex and Imran were still lost (and Duncan had been, very recently) and Kenny, perhaps killed a little too firmly in the previous episode, was nowhere to be found at all. Jaideep was present, but his injured hand really does make it impossible for him to play for the time being.

We were lent a fielder for the absent, or temporarily dead, Kenny, and Alex and Imran had arrived before the discussions about the covid rules were completed. Simon pointed out an anomaly, the first of several to appear in this match: the Laws of cricket permit an injured batsman a runner, but the covid rules allow only fifteen people on the field at any one time. We will deal with this when we come to it.

CB’s first ball was a gentle half-tracker, duly bashed to the cover boundary by the left-handed opener. A second, to his right-handed partner in the same over, got the same treatment. Imran was more accurate. The slow pitch encouraged neither side much, but there was some lateral movement and once CB had gathered speed he brought one back into the left-hander and bowled him. Nothing much happened for a while after that. The new batsman proceeded calmly, if a little slowly; the opener was brisker, and looked as if he might be dangerous if he stayed in too long. It was therefore alarming when he tried to loft Gregory down the ground and picked out the loaned fielder, who dropped it. Not the easiest of chances, it has to be said. Later in the same over, though, he tried to repeat the shot and skied to cover: Charlie, who juggled dramatically but held on in the end.

An Australian arrived and took a violent approach to the bowling of Gregory and, to a lesser extend, Ritvij. He did lose the ball over the hedge, but stationing CB (at CB’s own suggestion) at short midwicket unsettled him: attempting to avoid CB, he gave a catch to Farooq. The next batsman quickly did give a catch to CB, back at cover now. A momentary question arose of whether it might have been a bump ball, quickly quashed by the square-leg umpire: it seems that nobody thought it was but several people thought someone else thought it was. But after that Gregory ran out of overs and neither Farooq nor Bruce bowled quite consistently enough. The calm player who had come in at three started to be a bit more adventurous: his left-handed partner seemed baffled by Bruce but was more uninhibited against Farooq.

In the middle of all this a return by Simon to the bowler, Bruce, missed him by quite a long way and rolled gently into the hat that he had placed, in conformity with the covid regulations, on the ground. We should really have been penalised five runs, but we weren’t. Last year we escaped under very similar circumstances (the same hat) because of a creative ruling by the umpire that the covid regulations are not voluntary and that the hat was therefore not wilfully discarded, as specified in Law 28.2.1.3. This time the umpires refused to accept that reasoning, not because it is spectacularly bogus, though of course it is, but because they believed that the relevant law does not say anything about “wilful”. (It does: otherwise, if your hat falls off onto the ball as you try to field it, that would be five runs.) However, they also believed that the penalty only applies to a ball struck by the batsman, not a fielder’s throw. That’s wrong too, or the wicket-keeper could use a lacrosse stick to retrieve errant returns. The end result was that we escaped again. It would not have made any difference in the long run, but perhaps we should in future avoid putting umpires in the awkward position of having to decide this one by agreeing, as part of the covid rules, that there shall be no penalty if the ball strikes clothing placed on the ground by the bowler, that would ordinarily have been carried by the umpire.

The Laws also provide that the umpire is not a boundary. This saved us another four runs when a well-hit sweep was intercepted by the square-leg umpire, who turned adroitly so as to use the wad of ball-sanitising wipes as a makeshift thigh pad and thus escape any injury. Soon after that we broke the partnership through a swift pick-up and throw by CB, deftly gathered by Imran to complete the run-out; but the next batsman attacked quite successfully. In the last over Ritvij bowled the number three, who had accumulated about seventy by this time; but although Gregory went one better than CB by hitting the stumps at the nonstriker’s end when they attempted a quick single to him, he did it so slowly that the striker did not even have to stretch for his ground.

Our pursuit of 181 started badly. Badly for Priston at first: their opening bowler began with two wides and a no-ball. This sort of thing happens in the first match of the season. Actually it happens in the middle of July too. Ritvij’s first runs came from a miscue over midwicket and his next from a miscue over the bowler. Worse, Charlie simply missed his second ball altogether, and was bowled. CB’s assertive style with the bat was not well suited to the slow pitch, and he soon went the same way. Farooq managed better, even when struck on the navel by a full toss (which would have been a no-ball for height if it hadn’t been a front-foot no-ball already) and Ritvij, though complaining of his lack of timing, managed not to get out. Then Farooq edged one and was caught, more or less involuntarily, by the wicket-keeper, who took it one-handed even though it was by his right knee.

For the next eighteen overs or so we were one wicket from disaster. Simon and Ritvij were both capable of getting the runs, but there was nothing to follow. Alex used to be able to bat, but is badly out of practice, though he had kept wicket efficiently: Imran is competent, but not more; Duncan has a defence. After that, Bruce and Gregory. But Priston also had problems. One of their openers was off, the other was about to run out of overs, and they had no more reliable bowlers. They weren’t terrible, but they all bowled one or two really bad balls an over, and Ritvij in particular was now settled, and would reliably hit those for four. Simon still needed to be cautious and the run rate became a distant concern, but no more than that. Also, neither Simon nor Ritvij will panic. There wasn’t going to be an insane runout. Ritvij had been dropped once (again, not an easy catch) and wasn’t going to make that mistake again.

The Australian had a bowl. He actually bowled a decent length most of the time, but when he didn’t it went everywhere. He was no-balled four times for high full tosses, and eventually warned after a couple of them ended up head high, although the greatest danger was probably to any birds in the tree that Ritvij hit one of them into. Air Traffic Control may also have been concerned. More seriously, the trouble with this sort of thing is that he might bowl a straight head-high one. Of course he wasn’t doing it on purpose: it was just early-season randomness. He probably couldn’t do it if he did try. He carried on, though: he was no-balled twice more, but neither was at a height or pace to be remotely threatening. Ritvij, by now, was destroying everything anyway.

Then the wicket-keeper had a bowl. Priston apologised for this, but there is no rule against it. He, and the left-armer at the other end, both mixed good stuff with utter rubbish: this can be surprisingly effective. It was: Simon devised his completely new way of getting out. He was rightly given out LBW to a ball that could not have bowled him. The point is this: a ball that bounces twice before reaching the popping crease is a no-ball. This ball did bounce twice; but it bounced the second time on Simon’s foot. Nobody disputes the opinion of the umpire (Duncan) that he was struck in line, that the ball (first) pitched not outside leg, and that that it would if unimpeded have hit the stumps. Nevertheless, had Simon run away from the ball, it would have become a no-ball on pitching the second time, and he would not have been out bowled. Law 21.7 is unambiguous, though: only if the second bounce actually occurs is it a no-ball. So Duncan was right.

Of course, Simon would also not have been out if he had played a half-sensible shot and actually connected with the ball. Ritvij, at the other end, showed how it should be done. Alex joined him, looking extremely uncomfortable. After a while he was also LBW to the same bowler, more conventionally. We needed only about eighteen by this time. Ritvij would get them if he didn’t get out. Imran hit a four, survived a close LBW call himself against the returning opening bowler, and then chopped the next ball onto his stumps. We needed ten. Duncan survived.

The first ball of the next over, the thirtieth, was a wide. Ritvij hit a four, blocked one, and hit another four. Nobody knew what Ritvij’s personal score was: it was being carefully notated, but amid the flurry of wickets there had been no time to add it up. We thought it might be in the eighties somewhere.

Fortunately, perhaps, Duncan cannot really run. That removed all temptation for Ritvij to push a single to finish the match: and it would have been disastrous if he had done that, because his actual score was ninety-eight. Instead, he hit the next ball one bounce into the hedge; and found out, a few minutes later, that he had just completed his first century. There will be more of them, in more competitive matches against better opponents and for better teams, but we would like a few more for us before he becomes too good to play at this level. Priston might think that he already is; but he had thirty when they dropped him.