• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is there anything in the rules

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
As I say - no-one needs to be a wicketkeeper (in the sense of protective equipment) if they're on the boundary, do they? I don't think there's anything in the Laws stating that a side must at the commencement of every delivery have a nominated wicketkeeper?
No I don't think there's any requirement to have a wicketkeeper.

(In addition it seems implicit in r40.1 that you don't need one: the sanction for your "keeper" not being positioned where he can discharge the functions of a keeper is not that it's (say) a no-ball or a 5-run penalty, but simply that that individual cannot be recognised as a wicketkeeper.)
 

pug

U19 Vice-Captain
No I don't think there's any requirement to have a wicketkeeper.
Interesting issue, this. Made me hunt for my password to this account to put in a reply. I once had this issue while playing a friendly game with a bunch of Cambridge boys where a brief but intense debate broke out whether the role of a wicket-keeper is mandatory or optional.

The laws of cricket are easy to follow but frankly not very well drafted. Any mandatory requirement pertaining to specialist players should ideally be under Law 1 (The players). As Goughy and Richard pointed out, there are none concerning wicket-keepers.

Law 40.1 (The wicket-keeper) treats this position as a: "... right to be recognised as a wicket-keeper for the purposes of Laws [pertaining to wicket-keeper dismissals and privileges]..." thus conferring a right or privilege to a fielding side. The laws have no penalties for a fielding side that opts not to exercise this right.

Another brief mention of the nature of this role is in Law 2.3 (Substitutes...), which restricts a substitute from acting as a wicket-keeper. This implies that any member of the playing eleven may "act as a wicket-keeper", which in turn, due to the lack of any contradictory law, implies that none of the playing eleven needs to definitely act as a wicket-keeper.

So, a wicket-keeper is not a mandatory position, but if a fielder wants the privileges of this position, he must fulfil the requirements in Law 40.

Others have pointed out the requirements under Law 40, so I won't dwell on it in detail. There are some relevant definitions in 'Ask the Laws Department VII' from Fraser Stewart of the MCC Laws Department:

"Behind the wicket" is taken as meaning behind the imaginary line joining the backs of the stumps at one end.

"Wholly" behind the wicket means that every part of his person, even the tips of his gloved fingers or the peak of his cap, must remain behind.

The wicketkeeper is imprisoned from the moment the ball comes into play (when the bowler starts his run-up) until released by one of the three events stated in Law 40.3.


This is all fairly common sense interpretation of the laws and it apparently allows the wicket-keeper to stay anywhere in the half semi-circle of the field behind the stumps. But again, umpires may decide an unusual position to be "against the spirit of the game" as it abuses the privileges conferred to this specialist position. So, unless the umpires have been called to act on this before (not to my knowledge), there is no way to be absolutely certain whether this is possible.
 

Top