Cricket Appeals: How the Appeal Process Works and When Umpires Give a Batter Out
How cricket's appeal process works — why fielding teams must appeal for a dismissal, the 'How's that?' convention, what happens when an appeal is not made, and the rules around withdrawing appeals.
Cricket's appeal process — the requirement that the fielding team must ask the umpire for a dismissal before one can be given — is one of the sport's distinctive traditions. The umpire cannot give a batter out without an appeal, even if they observe a clear dismissal. This rule maintains cricket's tradition of fair play: the fielding team acknowledges the dismissal by appealing, and only after the appeal can the umpire adjudicate. Understanding the appeal process explains why catches are sometimes not celebrated (players unsure of the catch) and why run-out appeals are sometimes not made (the run was saved but the wicket was not immediately obvious).
The Rule: No Dismissal Without an Appeal
The Laws of Cricket state that the umpire cannot give a batter out unless an appeal has been made by the fielding team. An appeal is typically made by shouting 'How's that?' (colloquially 'Howzat!') in the direction of the umpire. The appeal must be made before the bowler delivers the next ball. If the fielding team fails to appeal, the umpire will not give the batter out even if a clear dismissal occurred — the opportunity passes when the next delivery is bowled. This rule prevents a dismissal from being given on the next delivery after the fact if no appeal was made at the time.
Withdrawing an Appeal
A fielding captain can withdraw an appeal after the umpire has given the batter out — a rare act of sportsmanship that occurs when the fielding team believes the dismissal was caused by a factor outside the batter's control (e.g., the ball hit a fielder before reaching the bat on a caught-behind, or the batter was distracted). The act of withdrawing an appeal is entirely voluntary and at the captain's discretion; once withdrawn, the batter returns to the crease and batting continues. Famous instances of appeal withdrawal include several Test matches where captains felt the dismissal was unfair in spirit, even if technically legal.
Frequently asked questions
Why does cricket require an appeal rather than allowing the umpire to give a dismissal without one — is this an outdated tradition or does it serve a genuine purpose?
Cricket's appeal requirement is one of the sport's most interesting philosophical traditions, and the debate over whether it remains fit for purpose is genuine. Historical origin: the appeal process dates to cricket's origins as a gentlemen's game where the fielding team was expected to acknowledge it was 'having a go' at the umpire rather than expecting umpires to proactively police dismissals. The 'How's that?' phrasing is literally a question — 'Is this out, in your judgment?' — preserving the fiction that the umpire is an impartial third party being consulted rather than a referee who proactively calls fouls. Practical purposes: the appeal system ensures that fielding teams are confident in what they're claiming before asking the umpire to rule. A fielder who takes a low catch must decide (and signal through the appeal) whether they believe they took it cleanly. If they're not sure, they don't appeal — this embeds a version of good sportsmanship into the process. Without the appeal requirement, umpires would need to adjudicate on every potential dismissal, dramatically increasing their decision-making burden and the frequency of decisions. Is it outdated?: the case for reform focuses on run-outs and edge-behind stumpings where the fielding team genuinely doesn't know a dismissal occurred (a thin edge to the keeper on a wide ball, a back-foot run-out by millimetres). The current system allows these to go unchallenged when they would have been given had the team seen them. A regime where umpires could initiate reviews on potential dismissals (with DRS) would catch these cases, but would fundamentally change cricket's structure from adversarial (fielding team's burden) to inquisitorial (umpire's burden). Consensus: cricket has generally preferred to preserve the appeal requirement while expanding DRS to review appeals that are made. The system has worked well enough that reform would need a clear failure mode beyond the known limitation that missed appeals occasionally let dismissals go unchallenged.