|
11/02/2009 - Harry Winfield - Replies to the Umpiring Question. |
 |
|
Established 1994
H.F.Winfield. Juez Arbitro Principal de Jueces Arbitros. Director of Training C.B.U.M.A. 8th February 2009. Dear Bryn, (Dave Brannon), I have been asked by Sue Cooper, President of the C.B.U.M.A to reply to your letter regarding the use of a substitute in a recent inter club match. Firstly, I must again stress that competition organisers must realize that more and more the different formats of play are coming into force and they MUST publish “Rules and Conditions of Play” appertaining to the event taking place. (See Law 16.3 and Law 17.2 ) As far as the situation you have described, 1) The match format was between two SIDES of 10 players. (See Law 16.3 ) See Law 14.5 Definition of a Side Game. 2) See Law 51.2 which allows a Substitute in a Side Game. You state that you invoked Law 51.7 to uphold your decision that the game should be forfeited. As I have said, the singles player was, in my opinion, part of the Side and NOT involved in a separate singles game therefore the Substitute should have been allowed. Competition Organisers now have the advantage of using Appendix A (Page 60 in the Law book). I understand that at the time of the incident you speak of, a) The two Captains mutually agreed to the Substitution. b) A certified Umpire gave the opinion that the substitution was legal. Had I have been the official Umpire on duty at the time and having been asked for a ruling I would certainly have allowed the Substitution and would have then sent an incident report to the appropriate Governing Body. However, I would have made sure that all parties were made aware of the contents of the “Foreword” on page 6 of the Law book which should have been the best immediate solution. I trust that this has helped in interpreting the relevant Laws in the recent situation.
Best regards, Harry. c.c. Sue Cooper President C.B.U.M.A.
|
||||
|
