Print

[Manormanic]

Or perhaps the umpires were aware of the law stating only someone in the original 11, not a substitute fielder, is allowed to keep wicket...

though it is the first time I've seen umpires refuse to accept a gentlemen's agreement on the subject.

[WalkingWicket37]

though it is the first time I've seen umpires refuse to accept a gentlemen's agreement on the subject.

Possibly it was because of the laws of the game the game would lose its 1st ass status, the umpires chose not to allow it so the game kept its place.
I am only guessing but that's all I can think of as to why they'd do it.

[Sam]

Possibly it was because of the laws of the game the game would lose its 1st ass status, the umpires chose not to allow it so the game kept its place.
I am only guessing but that's all I can think of as to why they'd do it.

Quite confident there has been an agreement between captains before in a similar situation to this and the game has still kept its status.

[Alvaro]

Cameron is correct. You cannot bring a specialist keeper on as a sub and have them keep. Whatever the captains agree is moot.

[Sam]

Are test matches allowed to have their statuses removed as well then  .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_cricket_team_in_England_in_1986#England.27s_four_wicket-keepers

Or have the rules changed a lot since then?

[Alvaro]

Yes

[Manormanic]

Cameron is correct. You cannot bring a specialist keeper on as a sub and have them keep. Whatever the captains agree is moot.

You really can.  I remember Bob Taylor maybe five years after his retirement keeping for England in a Test match, to be replaced by Bobby Parks who...well...never got a test cap.  I can also remember Richard Blakey coming on to replace Bairstow senior in a game at Scarborough when the latter injured his hand.

There are laws.  They stand unless there is an agreement to vary them between the captains that is approved by the umpires.  It is only an alteration to the number of players that affects the first class status.  Though even that seems to be a moveable feast - after all, how often do England release players to or call them up from Championship matches, for example leading to the ridiculous situation wherein Kevin Innes - a bowler of limited willow wielding skill - made his maiden first class century and was dropped before the match even finished!!!

[Alvaro]

I know it has happened in the past. You used to be able to have a runner too.

[Manormanic]

Yes, and bowl underarm  too for that matter.  But I think you'll find that for all of the instances mentioned by myself and others the law was exactly as it is now...