The Marylebone Cricket Club has issued a clarification on Law 20.4.2.5, which covers the situation where a batter is not ready when a delivery is bowled. The clarification was prompted by two contrasting incidents from recent Hundred fixtures at Lord's, in which umpires reached different conclusions in situations that appeared similar on the surface.
The two incidents came from separate matches. In the men's fixture between London Spirit and MI London, Nicholas Pooran withdrew his bat when Liam Livingstone ran in to bowl while Pooran was not yet set. Umpire Mike Burns called Dead ball on the grounds that Pooran had made no move to play the delivery. Three days later, in the women's match between London Spirit and Birmingham Phoenix, Marizanne Kapp half-heartedly waved her bat at a delivery from Linsey Smith despite not being ready. Umpire Mark Newell ruled that the ball counted as one of the over because Kapp had made an attempt to play it.
Both decisions were correct under the Laws. The contrasting outcomes arose entirely from one factor, whether the batter made any attempt to play the ball. That distinction sits at the heart of Law 20.4.2.5 and is the reason MCC chose these two incidents to illustrate how the provision should be applied.
What must an umpire establish before calling Dead ball?
Law 20.4.2.5 sets out two conditions that must both be satisfied before an umpire can call Dead ball in this situation. The batter must have made no attempt to play the delivery, and the umpire must be satisfied that the batter had a genuine reason for not being in position when the ball was bowled. If both conditions are met, the delivery is called Dead and does not count as one of the over.
The moment a batter makes any attempt to play the ball, even a minimal or half-hearted one as Kapp demonstrated, the Dead ball provision no longer applies. The delivery stands and counts in the over regardless of whether the batter was fully prepared. This is the precise line that separated the two Hundred incidents and explains why two experienced umpires arrived at opposite rulings in what looked like comparable situations.
Law 41.10.1 provides the broader context where it states that it is unfair for a batter to waste time and that, in normal circumstances, the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to begin their run-up. This provision makes clear that Law 20.4.2.5 is not intended to give batters a mechanism for gaining extra preparation time at will.
How do umpires decide whether a batter had adequate reason for not being ready?
The MCC clarification confirms that umpires must consider the bowler's conduct as part of their assessment. If a bowler shortened their run-up or began their approach without the usual pause between deliveries, that behaviour could give a batter a legitimate reason for not being in position. Umpires are expected to weigh those circumstances carefully before deciding whether the Dead ball provision applies.
This means the Law requires a contextual judgement rather than a mechanical check. Where a bowler followed their standard approach and the batter was simply not set, the umpire would need clear grounds to be satisfied that a genuine reason existed before calling Dead ball.