Handled the ball was formerly one of the methods of dismissing a batsman in the sport of cricket, but was integrated into the Law on obstructing the field when the Laws of Cricket were rewritten in 2017. It dictated that either batsman can be given out if they intentionally touch the ball with a hand that is not holding their bat. An exception was given if the batsman handled the ball to avoid injury. It was governed by Law 33 of the 2000 Edition of the Laws, and was a rare way for a batsman to be dismissed: in the history of cricket, there have been 61 instances in first-class matches and 5 occasions in List A games. In most cases this occurred when a batsman thought that the ball was going to hit their wicket, and knocked it away from the stumps with their hand.
In international cricket, only ten dismissals have been in this fashion; on seven occasions in Test cricket and three times in One Day Internationals. The South African Russell Endean became the first victim of this method in international cricket when he was dismissed in a 1957 Test match against England. The final occurrence was in an ODI in 2015, when Chamu Chibhabha of Zimbabwe was given out against Afghanistan.
Definition
Handled the ball was Law 33 in the Laws of Cricket established by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC). A batsman could be given out for handling the ball if, while playing a delivery, the batsman intentionally touched the ball with one or both of their hands not holding the bat. A decision of not out would be reached if the batsman handled the ball to avoid incurring an injury. A bowler did not receive credit for the wicket when a batsman was dismissed in this fashion.
History
As a method of dismissal, handling the ball was included in the Laws of Cricket from the original code, written in 1744. In that document, it stated that "If ye Striker touches or takes up ye Ball before she is lain quite still, unless asked by ye Bowler or Wicket-keeper, its out." Similar wording remained in the revision made to the laws thirty years later. The first batsman to be dismissed for handling the ball in first-class cricket was James Grundy, who suffered the fate while playing for the MCC against Kent in 1857. Prior to 1899, a batsman could be given out for handling the ball even if they were doing so to remove a ball which had got stuck in their equipment or clothing. At the time, if one of the fielders removed the ball from the batsman's clothing, they could claim a catch. It was in such a situation that George Bennett, the first player to be given out handled the ball in English county cricket, was dismissed in 1872. The wicket of William Scotton in early 1887 was described by Gerald Brodribb as "most unusual". In a match between the smokers and the non-smokers involved in the 1886–87 Ashes series, Scotton faced the final delivery of the contest. Eager to claim the ball as a souvenir of the high-scoring match, he defended the delivery and picked the ball up. The fielders—who also wanted the souvenir—appealed, and Scotton was ruled out.
An addition was made to the law in 1950 to allow umpires to give a batsman not out if the ball should strike the hand after "an involuntary action by the striker in the throwing up of a hand to protect his person". For a time, the act of handing the ball back to the fielding side was listed as not out under Law 33, and instead was considered to be part of a different method of dismissal: obstructing the field, covered in Law 37. The illegal nature of this offence was later returned to Law 33, but reverted to Law 37 in 2013. In 1948 the MCC issued a reminder to batsman, advising them not to handle the ball for any reason at any point during a cricket match, but it is relatively common for batsmen to pick the ball up and return it to the fielding side. Charles Wright was the first player to be dismissed for returning the ball to a fielder in first-class cricket; albeit wrongly. Brodribb relates that in an 1893 match, W. G. Grace influenced Wright to return the ball to him, and upon doing so, appealed. The umpire dismissed Wright, despite a clause added to the law nine years previous stating that a batsman would not be ruled out if they were returning the ball at the request of the fielding side.