Cricket: Boots kick up fuss but not with the umpires

VETERAN Kelburne wicket-keeper Sandy Strang will be "astonished" if disciplinary action is taken against him for the footwear he wore in the weekend match against East Kilbride.

Strang's Adidas F50 football boots have been mentioned in the report sent by East Kilbride to Cricket Scotland, and that report, along with the umpires', will be assessed before it is decided if further action should be taken.

The umpires' report does not mention Strang's footwear, and The Scotsman columnist insists that, as he was not warned about the boots by the officials, that should be an end to the matter. "I'd be astonished if I was disciplined for this," Strang said last night.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"I said to umpire Duncan Blair before the first ball of the second innings that I was quite happy to change my footwear, as I'd heard East Kilbride were not happy. But he said it was fine, and as far as I was concerned that was the matter closed.

"I'm quite bullishly unrepentant about this. I had other boots with me, and the only reason I wear these particular ones is that they give a decent grip and are phenomenally light.

"The original idea for wearing boots like these came from Greg Blewett, the former Test cricketer, when he was playing for South Australia. These are new-style football boots, not perhaps like the kind of things the phrase 'football boots' would conjure up, and they've got six blades on each sole."

Strang knows what he's talking about when it comes to football boots. He is a Cambridge blue at 'soccer', and a Wembley winner from the 1970 Varsity match.

Blair's fellow-umpire Willie Russell last night confirmed Strang's account. "We have sent our report to Cricket Scotland, and there is no mention of Mr Strang's boots in it," he said.

The laws of cricket do not specifically prohibit any form of footwear, but any player causing damage to the pitch can be disciplined, and that damage would include inadvertent harm caused by footwear. A revision of the laws passed in 2000 allows for a runs penalty to be imposed in the case of such damage, but that penalty would have to be imposed at the time by the umpire. A more probable action in a case such as this would be for an umpire to have a word with anyone deemed to be causing offence. Only if the player insisted on carrying on in the same footwear would the official then be likely to issue a runs penalty.

East Kilbride have accepted that the umpires were informed of their concerns but chose not to act. Nonetheless, they have posted photos on their website purporting to show the harm to the pitch caused by Strang's boots, along with a statement from their self-styled "grumpy groundsman" Bill Linley."That's called 'putting the boot in' and completely unacceptable on a cricket square and track," Linley said. "Fielding in the outfield just about OK, but batting and keeping wicket (should be] in cricket boots! Completely unacceptable damage, which will not be easily rectified. Attention of umpires was drawn to this but the player involved was allowed to continue."

East Kilbride all-rounder Umair Saeed added that he had complained to his own club's president, Brian Kampman, but that he, too, had been unable to persuade the officials to take action. "It was told to both umpires and their captain, but nothing changed," he wrote.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The fact that East Kilbride won the match has enhanced Strang's feeling that they should have let the matter lie. He believes Kelburne would have been within their rights to call a halt to the fixture early because of deteriorating weather, in which case the home team would not have been able to pick up the points for the victory.

Kelburne player Scott Hamilton backed up his team-mate, arguing that a mountain had been made out of a molehill. "I didn't see an issue with it then, and I don't see how there can be one now," he said. "My only complaint about Sandy would be that he's far too old to wear white football boots and try to look flash like Lionel Messi."