Aiden Markram’s hat hit the ball when he tried to save a boundary at the beginning of England’s run chase. However, only two runs were awarded to the batting team. Here’s why England weren’t given penalty runs during that incident in the 2023 World Cup.
To bet on the World Cup with our Match Centre Partners bet365 head here.
Batting first, South Africa put 399 on the board against England. A Henrich Klaasen masterclass (109 off 67), aided with contributions from Reeza Hendricks (85 off 75), Rassie van der Dussen (60 off 61) and Marco Jansen (75* off 42), helped them pile on the sixth-highest World Cup total. Earlier in their campaign, South Africa also posted 428-5 against Sri Lanka, the highest-ever score in the tournament.
Markram, stand-in skipper in place of an ill Temba Bavuma, saved what seemed a certain boundary off Dawid Malan’s bat in the last ball of the second over. He chased the ball in the mid-wicket region, making a diving stop to save vital runs for his side. He ensured the ball stayed inside the ropes, while his hat, which came off in the process, made contact with the ball. On-field umpire, Nitin Menon, signalled two runs despite the ball touching Markram’s headgear.
Under Law 28.2.2 “it is not illegal fielding if the ball in play makes contact with a piece of clothing, equipment or any other object which has accidentally fallen from the fielder’s person, or been dropped by an umpire”. If the ball hits a helmet placed behind the wicketkeeper, this can incur penalty runs. But as the law makes clear, these are two different situations
Contrary to this ruling, South Africa conceded five penalty runs in a Super 12 match against Zimbabwe in the 2022 T20 World Cup. Quinton de Kock let go of his wicketkeeping gloves in an attempt to generate a run-out chance against Milton Shumba. Lungi Ngidi threw the ball in, which hit the discarded glove lying on the ground.
The umpire immediately signalled five penalty runs to Zimbabwe, calling the ball dead. He enacted law 28.2.1.3 which states a fielder “will be deemed to have fielded the ball illegally if, while the ball is in play he/she wilfully discards a piece of clothing, equipment or any other object which subsequently makes contact with the ball.”
So the difference between today’s judgement and the one in the T20 World Cup lies in the intentions of the fielder as Markram didn’t drop his clothing on purpose, while de Kock did.
