The Shorter Wisden 2013 (33 page)

The rolling Hampshire countryside and the Isle of Wight in the distance are what make the Ageas Bowl his favourite location to shoot from the platform on top of the crane, manned at ground level
by colleague Steve Allan.

Asked, as he often is, about the danger of becoming a human lightning rod, the 62-year-old Hutton employs North Yorkshire phlegm: “I have picked up a good knowledge of clouds and can see
storms developing from a fair distance. Sometimes you get a twinge of vertigo, but on the whole I’m fine with it.”

CRICKET IN THE COURTS

STANFORD JAILED FOR 110 YEARS

Allen Stanford, 62, the corrupt financier once hailed as the saviour of cricket, was sentenced to 110 years in jail by a court in Houston, Texas. Judge David Hittner described
Stanford’s corrupt $7bn Ponzi scheme as “one of the most egregious frauds ever presented to a trial jury in federal court”.

The judge ordered Stanford to forfeit $5.9bn in assets, though investigators found very little of his fortune. At least 30,000 people were said to have lost money as a result of bogus
investments by the Stanford International Bank. Many of his victims – including one woman whose family lost $4m – were in court to hear Assistant US Attorney William Stellmach tell the
judge: “From beginning to end, he’s treated his victims like roadkill. Allen Stanford doesn’t deserve anyone’s sympathy and he doesn’t deserve your honour’s
mercy.”

In 2006 Stanford was knighted by the Antigua government. In 2008 he flew into Lord’s by helicopter where a Perspex case ostensibly containing $20m in cash was waiting – the purse for
a Twenty20 match between a team of West Indians and an England XI. He was fawned on by the game’s leading officials. Within a year US investigators had gone public with their allegations, and
Stanford was in jail.

Stanford blamed his downfall on “Gestapo tactics” by prosecutors which provoked a run on his banks. He said: “I am and will always be at peace with the way I conducted
myself.” Sentencing him on March 6, Hittner made most of the 13 separate sentences consecutive rather than concurrent, which means Stanford will die in jail unless the conviction is
overturned or he is pardoned.

SWANN FINED

England off-spinner Graeme Swann was fined £1,383 by Kidderminster magistrates on June 1 for speeding and failing to respond after his Jaguar was caught doing 74mph on a
50mph stretch of road in Herefordshire. Swann was said to have sent no reply to five letters requesting the name of the driver.

He told the court he had written to West Mercia Police after the first letter, saying his agent was driving, but had not received the other four. Philip Worrall, defending, said they were
probably not delivered because they were addressed to West Bridgend, Nottingham, not West Bridgford. “We find the prosecution more credible,” said magistrate Tim Morris.

CAIRNS WINS TWITTER LIBEL TRIAL

The former New Zealand all-rounder Chris Cairns won £90,000 damages at the High Court in London on March 26 after suing the former Indian Premier League commissioner Lalit
Modi for accusing him of match-fixing. This was said to be the first libel case involving a Twitter message.

Modi was estimated to be facing a bill of £1.4m, including legal costs, after a 24-word tweet sent in 2010 claimed Cairns had a record of fixing. Mr Justice Bean said Modi had
“singularly failed” to provide evidence to back up his claim, or even to show there were reasonable grounds for suspicion. He also criticised the aggressive nature of the defence, which
included Modi’s counsel calling Cairns a liar 24 times; the judge said this had led him to increase the damages by £15,000. An appeal was thrown out in October.

The allegation stemmed from Cairns’s time captaining Chandigarh Lions in the Indian Cricket League, the failed rival to the IPL. Cairns faced criticism for bringing the case in the UK,
where there were estimated to be between 35 and 100 people who read the tweet. Padraig Reidy of the pressure group Index on Censorship called his decision “one of the most clear-cut cases of
libel tourism we have seen”; libel lawyer Mark Stephens called the case “ridiculous” and said it should have been struck out.

JOSHI JAILED FOR SEX OFFENCES

The Indian off-spinner Uday Joshi, who made his name playing for Sussex in the 1970s, was jailed for six years on March 9 for sexually abusing a boy while playing and coaching
in Northern Ireland in 1979.

A 45-year-old man gave evidence at Belfast Crown Court about three incidents that took place when, as a 13-year-old, he and Joshi stayed in the same house. Joshi denied all the allegations and
said nothing untoward had happened, but he was convicted unanimously after a five-day trial.

Judge Gemma Loughran said she accepted that the offences had been wholly out of character for Joshi, a 67-year-old married father of two, but said they had left the victim with a chronic
adjustment disorder and anxiety. Joshi was barred for life from working with children. On December 19, an appeal was dismissed. He took 557 first-class wickets in a 17-year career, mainly for
Sussex and Gujarat.

AZHARUDDIN’S LIFE BAN OVERTURNED

Twelve years after being banned for life for match-fixing by the Indian cricket authorities, the former national captain Mohammad Azharuddin had the ban set aside by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court on November 9. The court said he had not been given the chance to state his case, and that the claims were unsubstantiated. Asked whether he regretted playing 99 Tests and not
100, Azharuddin said, “Maybe I was destined to play 99 Test matches and that’s what the Almighty wanted. I would not like to dwell on the past. I am an MP and would like to focus on the
development of my constituency, Moradabad.”

SACKED EXECUTIVE AWARDED EIGHT-FIGURE SUM

Tim Wright, the British former chief executive of IPL franchise Deccan Chargers, was awarded £10.5m on July 16 by the High Court in London for breach of contract when he
was dismissed in 2009. The Chargers’ owners, the
Deccan Chronicle
, did not attend the trial because they disputed the court’s jurisdiction, and were subsequently reported to be
in financial difficulties. Wright insisted the contract was subject to UK law.

LIFE SENTENCE FOR NZ CRICKET BAT KILLER

A New Zealander admitted bashing his de facto stepfather to death with a bat, before going on to play cricket the next day. Christopher Glenn Gleeson, 25, was jailed for life,
with a minimum of 11 years four months, in the High Court at Christchurch on April 17. Gleeson pleaded guilty, but offered no explanation.

CRICKET AND THE LAWS IN 2012

F
RASER
S
TEWART

Steven Finn has demolished many stumps during his career, but it was his disruption of the wrong set that caused a stir in 2012. While Finn had occasionally broken the
non-striker’s wicket with his knee throughout his career, the quirk came to a head during the Second Test against South Africa at Headingley. On the first morning, he knocked into the wicket
during his delivery stride at least twice before umpire Steve Davis signalled dead ball when it happened again. It was from this delivery that Graeme Smith edged to Andrew Strauss at slip –
but the dismissal didn’t count.

At the time, no specific Law dictated that a bowler should be penalised for accidentally disturbing the non-striker’s stumps, and rarely was dead ball called on such occasions. However,
Davis chose to apply Law 23.4(b)(vi), which states that either umpire should signal dead ball when “the striker is distracted by any noise or movement, or in any other way, while he is
preparing to receive, or receiving a delivery. This shall apply whether the source of the distraction is within the game or outside it. The ball shall not count as one of the over.”

Jeff Crowe, ICC’s match referee at Headingley, confirmed to MCC that Finn had broken the wicket at least twice prior to the Smith incident. Both batsmen complained it was a distraction,
and Finn was told to move over. Davis himself was also said to have found it distracting. Law 23.4(b)(iv) states that the umpire should call dead ball if “one or both bails fall from the
striker’s wicket before the striker has had the opportunity of playing the ball”. The reference to the
striker’s
wicket indicates dead ball should not automatically be
called if the wicket at the bowler’s end is disturbed.

Whether the striker is distracted is a moot point. Smith hit two subsequent balls for four when Finn had broken the wicket, only for a call of dead ball to cancel out the runs. If the striker
really feels he is distracted, he can pull away, though this may not always be possible with a bowler as fast as Finn.

The ICC introduced a directive to their umpires that such incidents should result in a warning at the first occasion, followed by the call of dead ball on subsequent occasions (although Finn,
deemed a repeat offender, was told during the one-day series in India in January 2013 that he would get no warning, and was subsequently denied the wicket of Suresh Raina at Mohali, with Davis
again the umpire). But MCC felt this directive was unfair to batsmen, who could be denied runs. And there is no reason why the second breaking of the wicket should be more distracting than the
first.

After discussing the matter at length, MCC decided in February 2013 to change the Law so that, from October, a no-ball will automatically be called should the bowler break the stumps during the
act of delivery. This removes the burden from the umpire to rule whether the batsman really has been distracted.

The players’ knowledge of the Laws is sometimes questionable – and ignorance can definitely be costly. When Jonny Bairstow was caught by Gautam Gambhir at silly point on the stroke
of lunch on the third day of the Second Test against India at Mumbai in November, it was via Gambhir’s chest and the grille of his helmet. Law 32.3 states “it is not a fair catch if the
ball has previously touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder”. But by the time TV replays showed what had happened, Bairstow had left the field and lunch was almost over.

In scenes reminiscent of those described here last year, when Ian Bell was reprieved after being initially given run out during the Trent Bridge Test against India in 2011, the England
management attempted to have the decision overturned during the interval. India chose not to withdraw the appeal, as was their prerogative: unlike the more complicated circumstances of the Bell
run-out, this was nothing more than an umpiring error. However, had Bairstow known the Law – he admitted he didn’t – he could at least have mentioned to the umpire that he felt
the ball had struck the helmet (Gambhir said he was unaware of the Law too). He would then have been reprieved by the third umpire.

Then, in Kolkata, Alastair Cook was run out in bizarre circumstances, taking evasive action at the non-striker’s end as Virat Kohli threw the ball from midwicket. Cook had backed up a
couple of metres down the pitch, but turned to regain his ground after seeing no run was possible. He was leaning towards his crease in order to tap his bat down but, just inches before doing so,
took evasive action as the ball passed him. It hit the stumps – and Cook was out for 190.

The Laws do contain a section designed to protect a batsman from being out if he is attempting to avoid injury. The relevant part of Law 38.2 says a batsman is not run out if “he has been
within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down”. The key is the first six words: Cook had not returned to his crease before taking evasive action,
and the umpires could not therefore enact Law 38.2(a). Had he tapped his bat down,
then
taken evasive action, he would have been protected. His reaction suggested he was aware of his
blunder, and he later confirmed it was a “brain fade”.

The running out of the non-striker by the bowler remains one of the most emotive dismissals, and tempers frayed when Surrey’s Murali Kartik removed Somerset’s Alex Barrow that way in
a Championship match. The Laws allow the bowler to run out the non-striker before he enters his delivery stride, which starts when the back foot is planted. The ICC and the ECB have altered this
for their regulations, with the aim of keeping the non-striker in his ground for longer. The ECB’s wording is: “The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has
not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker.”

Neither the Laws nor the regulations state that a warning should be given, although convention suggests it is preferable. But Kartik had already warned Barrow: while the affair was unsavoury to
many, Kartik had done nothing wrong. The bowler is normally painted as the villain in such a scenario, but it is the batsman who is gaining an unfair advantage, whether wilfully or
inadvertently.

With TV umpires often scrutinising no-balls at the fall of a wicket, many have questioned whether the no-ball Law is too strict, and the bowler should get the benefit of the doubt on in marginal
cases. Law 24.5 explains that the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised, behind the popping crease. Law 9.3 additionally defines the popping
crease as the back edge of the crease marking. If the bowler’s heel is on the line, and nothing behind it, then the delivery is a no-ball. It also makes no difference how thick the markings
are: it is the back edge of the line that matters.

There has to be a precise point at which the delivery goes from being fair to unfair. You could redefine the Law, but you would only be shifting the problem, not solving it: the umpire would
have to check whether the line was touched, or completely overstepped. It would be the same problem, but moved to a different area. The problem here is not with the Law, but with bowlers
overstepping. MCC accept that a centimetre here or there won’t necessarily give the bowler an unfair advantage. But unless there is a clear point at which fair becomes unfair, the confusion
will only increase. Shades of grey may have been all the rage in 2012 but, in the case of the no-ball, black and white is essential.