What exactly prompted the MCC, custodians of the laws, to determine mock fielding as an indiscretion? Also is distraction, deception or an obstruction easy to interpret for the on-field umpires? Fraser Stewart, MCC's Laws of Cricket manager, reveals the details around Law 41.5.
Stewart: The reason for the introduction of this law was that fielders were deliberately pretending to have the ball as a means of fooling the batsmen, thereby preventing them from taking further runs. The batsmen would see a slide and a feigned throw and would decline, for example, a second run. By the time they realised the ball had not been thrown, it would then be too late to take the second run. This was felt to be unfair. It was becoming an increasingly used practice at various levels of the game. It formed one of the questions in MCC's global consultation and the response was overwhelmingly in favour of introducing a law to ban the practice.
So Labuschagne was clearly guilty of Law 41.5?
Stewart: Fielders may not try to deceive either batsman. The fielder here [Labuschagne] has tried to deceive the batsmen, attempting to convince them that there is no chance of a run. It is clear to see how the feigned throw stops them temporarily. The umpires are completely correct to award five penalty runs under Law 41.5. The batsmen can also choose who is to face the next ball, and the ball should not count as one for the over.
If Labuschagne had not mocked the throw, would he still have been penalised?
Stewart: If the fielder had just dived, it would not have been a breach of the law. He made a genuine attempt to stop the ball by diving. He just missed it but had done nothing wrong with that part. Where he erred was when he did the fake throw. This quite clearly led the batsmen to believe that he had indeed stopped the ball.
In other circumstances, if the slide takes place when the fielder isn't close to the ball and it wasn't a genuine attempt to stop it, the umpires will have to decide if they considered the slide to have been an attempt to deceive the batsman. Context is everything and it's hard to give a ruling without seeing each case.
But how advisable is it to have a law that is so open to interpretation and subjectivity. Take this example. Would Kumar Sangakkara have been guilty of this new law?
Stewart: The Sangakkara example is less clear-cut. Technically, he is deliberately attempting to deceive the batsman, but I'm not sure what advantage he is gaining - not that the gaining of an advantage needs to be proved. It seems to be done more out of jest than out of an attempt to cause confusion and prevent a run being scored. Under the letter of the Law, one could not argue with the penalty being imposed. Equally, however, an umpire might choose to handle it by having a quiet word and informing him of the new law. As with any law like this, it is always going to be for the umpires to decide what is "deliberate" and what is "deception".
There are wicketkeepers who collect the ball down the leg side, turn around pretending they have missed the ball, and run a batsman out after he sets off for a single. Does that count as deception?
Stewart: If a wicketkeeper is deliberately trying to make it look like he has missed the ball when he has it in his hands for a stumping, it is an attempt to deceive the batsman and would fall foul of the law. It is for the umpires on the field to decide if it is deception or not as per Law 41.5.2.
While collecting throws, the Indian wicketkeeper MS Dhoni, for example, pretends like there is nothing happening to lull the running batsman into a false sense of security before whipping the bails off quickly when the throw comes in. Is that a foul act, too?
Stewart: If Dhoni is deliberately trying to make it look like he has missed the ball when he has it in his hands for a stumping, it is an attempt to deceive the batsman and would fall foul of the law. However, transferring it onto the stumps in a subtle way after receiving the ball would be acceptable. It is for the umpires on the field to decide if it is deception or not.
How about a fielder in the deep, chasing after a ball and sliding when the boundary rider is actually going to pick the ball up and throw. Would that be the violation?
Stewart: As for the fielder sliding - that would depend on context - is he/she trying to convince the batsmen that the ball is closer to being thrown in than it actually is? If so, it is deception. Is he/she is simply getting out of the way so their team-mate has a clear throw? If so, it is not deception. How close to the ball was he when he made the slide, and was there any feigned throw? These are the matters that the umpire should consider.
