Leg Byes Deliberate Padding Law Conundrum

Run Out on a Deliberate Padding raises contradictory opinions 

                                                                 From ICC Web Site

A difference of opinion has emerged between the ICC and the MCC on a particular law relating to the dis-allowance of runs for deliberate padding.

In a scenario, where the striker batsman, who has supposedly padded up deliberately, is run out at the non striker's end while attempting to complete the first run, the ICC ruling has directed for the 'dis-allowance' provisions to come into play and for the 'Not Out' batsman to return to his original crease and for the new batsman to take strike the next ball. 

MCC's Clarification

However, the MCC Laws of cricket, of which former Elite Panel Umpire S Ravi is a technical committee member (https://prtraveller.blogspot.com/2017/12/umpire-ravi-mcc-laws-sub-committee.html), has issued a clarification that because the run has not been completed, there is no question of dis-allowance and for the deliberate padding provision to be invoked. In such a scenario, the non striker who had crossed while attempting the first run will face the next ball.

The 1980 Code

The Laws of Cricket - 1980 Code states "In case of a deflection by the Striker's person, other than when in the opinion of the Umpire, the striker has attempted to play the ball with his bat, or tried to avoid being hit by the ball, the Umpire shall call and signal 'dead ball' as soon as one run has been completed or when it is clear that a run is not being attempted or the ball has reached the boundary. On the call and signal of 'dead ball', the Batsmen shall return to their original ends and no run shall be allowed.'

This writer's view on this issue:

1. If a run out is given, then deliberate padding should not come into play as the law is quite clear in its wording that deliberate padding 'dead ball' decision and dis-allowance is to be invoked only in two scenarios:

a. when the batsmen have completed the first run

or 

b. When the ball has crossed the boundary.

Since neither the first run has been completed nor the ball has crossed the boundary, the deliberate padding dead ball provision cannot come into play. 

BCCI's direction to Umpires

BCCI is currently following the ICC provisions and hence for all matches played in India, the current scenario of striker being run out at the non striker's end will result in the umpire asking the not out batsman to come to his original position (non striker's end) and the new batsman will take strike the next ball.

Also, in this case as per the current ICC (and BCCI) direction, the umpire does not signal dead ball after the run out even though he is invoking provisions of deliberating padding dis-allowance. Even as per the current ICC ruling, the provision of umpire not signalling dead ball after the run out but at the same time invoking the deliberate padding provision is not consistent with the law.

What about the Dead Ball Signal? 

If the ICC's current decision is to indeed to invoke the dis-allowance provision  because of deliberate padding and the not out batsman is asked to return to the original end, then the same signal ( dead ball) that would have been made had they completed the first run and when the run out decision was not to have come into play should be invoked here as well .

While the above ICC provision is being debated, this writer is of the view that in this case, with the batsmen not having completed the first run or with the ball not having crossed the boundary, the ICC should issue a clarification to the umpires that the deliberate padding provisions will not come into play in this scenario and that there does not arise the question of dis-allowance (since a run was not completed, there is no question of disallowing an uncompleted run).

This section will wait and watch the developments on this issue.