One of my favourite pastimes is finding sporting examples that are philosophically relevant. In that spirit, I wonder if any reader knows the answer to this question about the laws of cricket (or if not knows how I could easily find out the answer). It’s an old question, so I’m sure the answer is widely posted. (Those unfamiliar with cricket may as well skip to the next post – rather than quintuple the size of the blog by explaining the background about cricket necessary to follow along I decided to dive in with jargon. ‘Tis I think best with sporting examples. If you are feeling resentful, feel free to use examples in your work of areas about which I’m ignorant, like opera or NASCAR, or operatic NASCAR.)

The situation is that there’s an off-spin bowler and a right-hand batsman. The ball is pitched up just in line with off-stump. It turns a bit, not much but enough to trick the batsman. It may or may not hit the bat, which is propped just next to the left pad. It does catch a lot of that pad, which is all that stops it clattering into middle and leg stumps. It then pops up in the air where it is comfortably caught by the short leg. The bowler and fielders, understandably, appeal.

The umpire is in a quandry. If the ball hit the bat, he’s out caught. And if it didn’t hit the bat, he’s out leg before. But if the ball didn’t hit the bat, he isn’t out caught. And if it did hit the bat, he’s not out leg before. And the umpire doesn’t know which is true. Question: How should the umpire rule? And if the decision is that the batsman is out, how should it be scored?