Print

[Tail Ender]

Yes, you read that correctly. One of the guys I played with on the weekend has no legs, and he wears prosthetics. As such, when batting he doesn't wear pads, but he does need a runner, which the other team agreed to (you'd have to be pretty calous to deny a runner for a dude with no legs). However, when the runner went out without pads on the other team got a bit aggressive and demanded he go and put pads on. Obviously this situation is one I've never seen or heard of, but a few of us thought it was a bit over the top the other team demand he wear pads; doesn't the runner have to have the same gear as the batsman? Granted, his legs aren't real so he doesn't need pads, but still...

How would you deal with this if it was your team playing against him? And is there anything difinitive within the laws for this? (I highly doubt it) Was a very unique situation to say the least.

[Johnny]

I think asking the runner to wear pads is a reasonable request

[aussiejake]

I would definitely ask the runner to wear pads, pretty simple. Especially in competitive, or high grade, cricket.

[Buzz]

the laws require the runner to be wearing the same as the batsman.
so no pads are required... not sure whether the runner needs spare legs though...

[Mortimer]

The basic law requires that the runner requires the same external protective equipment and if possible to have already batted.

But the laws also state that a runner can only be used for an injury that occurred after the teams were nominated.

I would say that to comply with the spirit of the game, the opposition should  allow the runner, but the legless player's team should agree that the runner wears pads.

[Tail Ender]

This is the sort of conundrum that belongs in You are the Umpire, isn't it?

FWIW, the game was a fifth grade game and I don't think anyone had a problem with the runner putting pads on, just the way it was asked by the oppo.

[Johnny]

What Mortimer said

[Tom]

The laws state a runner is allowed for guys who have prosthetic legs, it's explicitly stated under this clause in a few version

"(b)The umpires shall have discretion to allow, for other wholly acceptable reasons, a substitute fielder or a runner to act for a nominated player, at the start of the match, or at any subsequent time."

If the batsman wasn't wearing pads, then the runner needn't.

[Manormanic]

I would say that to comply with the spirit of the game, the opposition should  allow the runner, but the legless player's team should agree that the runner wears pads.

Interesting one.  I guess I'd allow it, but I'd insit that we got to choose who the runner was!!!

[golders]

How many runs did he get, out of interest?

[Tail Ender]

He scored 36, and I think his runner was the quickest bloke on the team (not sure as it was the first time I'd played in that side).

[Vitas Cricket]

I played in a development league game for a friend this summer. The oppos number 4 had prosthetic legs, and wore no pads. Little footwork but struck a clean ball, he didn't use a runner, dealt mainly in boundaries and shuffled singles, got a solid 30-odd.

Was an odd sight to behold, the runner issue wouldn't have been a problem as it was a pretty low standard of cricket.

[Tail Ender]

So yesterday the opposition's captain initially wouldn't allow a runner, and started spouting ICC regulations. This was fifth (FIFTH) grade cricket, by the way. No one on our team could believe it. Apparently this bloke has some position with the association, so felt he was within his rights to be a dick about it. Eventually he gave in and said okay after our captain said he'd be bringing the issue up with our club president, as it was clearly discrimination. I think most of our team had already lost whatever respect we might've had for this bloke as a person by then.

And as if to rub his nose in it, Bobby went on top score for us with 70.

[golden duck]

Yay, good work that man.

I asked my umpire course tutor about this. They said 'invoke law 43 - common sense.

Allow a runner, but they should pad up as normal.