The Law of Appeal: Why Cricket Requires a Shout Before You're Out

Law 31 — Appeals: The Laws of Cricket require the fielding side to appeal before the umpire can give a batsman out. The Law states: 'Neither umpire shall give a batsman out unless appealed to.' The appeal: typically 'How's That?' (often rendered phonetically as 'Howzat') or any clear verbal expression of asking whether the batsman is out. The appeal must be made by a fielder (including the wicketkeeper, bowler, or any other fielder) before the ball becomes dead. After the ball is dead, the appeal window closes — no retrospective appeals are allowed. Why is an appeal required? Two reasons: (1) The umpire may not have seen all elements of a dismissal — they may be partially obstructed or watching a different element. The appeal draws their attention and confirms the fielding side believes a dismissal has occurred. (2) The spirit-of-cricket principle: the requirement to appeal reflects the game's self-regulatory tradition. The fielding side must affirmatively claim a dismissal; the umpire does not proactively hunt for dismissals on the fielders' behalf. This prevents dismissals from being 'manufactured' by the umpire without the fielding side's involvement. Exceptions: the one case where an appeal is not strictly required (though is always made in practice) is bowled — the stumps being hit is visible to all and the umpire can confirm it without an appeal in strict theory. However, in practice, appeals are always made.

The Appeal in Practice

Who can appeal: any fielder can appeal, including the wicketkeeper, any of the 10 fielders, or the bowler. In practice, the entire fielding side typically appeals simultaneously ('Howzat!' in unison) on any credible dismissal possibility — caught, LBW, stumped, run-out. The umpire responds to the first audible appeal. Multiple simultaneous appeals are common and acceptable. The timing requirement: the appeal must be made before the ball becomes dead (typically when the fielding side has stopped moving and accepted the ball is finished). In run-out situations, the appeal must be made while the ball is still in play — a fielder who throws the ball at the stumps and breaks them, then picks the ball up and throws it again, cannot appeal if the ball was already dead between the two throws. Withdrawing an appeal: the fielding captain (and only the fielding captain) can withdraw an appeal after it has been made — typically for spirit-of-cricket reasons (a batsman appears to have been given out LBW but the ball clearly hit the edge first; a fielder appeals for a catch that was clearly a bump ball; the captain sees the batsman has been hurt by the ball and withdraws the appeal). The umpire must accept the withdrawal if the fielding captain requests it; the batting side does not need to accept. Famous withdrawals: Mahela Jayawardene (Sri Lanka) withdrew an appeal against Ross Taylor (New Zealand) in 2012 when it became clear Taylor had injured his eye from a delivery — a celebrated spirit-of-cricket moment that was widely praised.

Excessive Appealing and the Spirit of Cricket

Excessive appealing: the Laws define excessive appealing as repeated appealing for the same dismissal after the umpire has given not-out, or appealing in an aggressive or intimidatory way. The umpires are required to caution players who appeal excessively, and to report them to the match referee. The match referee can impose fines or suspensions. The spirit-of-cricket dimension: excessive appealing is specifically identified as against the spirit of cricket in the Laws' Preamble — it represents an attempt to intimidate the umpire into changing a decision or to pressure the umpire for future marginal calls. Examples: England's close-field spinners of the 1990s were criticised for appealing for every bat-pad opportunity whether genuine or not. Indian T20 sides have been cited multiple times for excessive appealing on close LBW decisions (appealing loudly even when the ball had clearly pitched outside leg stump). The captaincy obligation: the Laws place responsibility for controlling excessive appealing on the captain. If a fielder appeals excessively, the captain should instruct them to stop. A captain who allows or encourages excessive appealing is violating their responsibility under the Preamble. The team-wide simultaneous appeal: it is completely normal for all 11 fielders to appeal simultaneously (and loudly) on a genuinely credible dismissal possibility. This is not excessive appealing — it is normal cricket behaviour. Excessive appealing specifically refers to repeated, aggressive appeals after a decision has been given, or appeals for deliveries that are clearly not out.

Appeals in DRS era: the DRS has changed the appeal ecology significantly. Before DRS, fielding teams would appeal on every marginal chance — hoping the umpire would give the batsman out in uncertain situations. After DRS, a team that appeals on non-genuine appeals wastes their review chances (if the team reviews a 'not out' that really was not out, they lose a review). DRS has therefore incentivised genuine appealing: teams now deliberate about whether to review rather than always reviewing after a negative decision. India's evolution: the BCCI's resistance to DRS (which they joined in 2016) meant India played without DRS for 7 years of the technology's existence. Indian players who joined the system late described having to learn a completely different appealing culture — deliberating before reviews rather than immediately appealing after every negative on-field decision. The new batsman not needing to appeal: there is one notable exception to the 'must appeal before given out' rule — the run-out. In a run-out, the fielder throwing the stumps down IS the 'appeal' in a practical sense. The umpire can give the run-out immediately without a specific verbal appeal — though in practice, the fielding side always shouts simultaneously with the throw.