A batter is not given out unless a fielder appeals.

The law and version used here

This page applies the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Laws of Cricket 2017 Code, 3rd Edition (2022), in force from 1 October 2022 and still the current MCC code on 26 August 2026. MCC is the custodian and drafter of the Laws; a national board, league or tournament may replace or supplement them through its playing conditions.

The separate DRS section below uses the ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions effective June 2025 as a named example. Its review deadlines and procedures are not universal rules for club, school, domestic or other international cricket.

An appeal is required for the umpire to give Out

MCC Law 31.1 says neither umpire may give a batter out unless appealed to by a fielder, even when the facts satisfy a dismissal Law. The appeal is therefore a request for a ruling, not proof that a wicket has fallen and not a protest against a decision already made.

There is one important route without an umpire’s Out decision. Under Laws 31.1 and 31.2, a batter who is actually out under another Law may leave the wicket without an appeal. The batter is then dismissed. If the batter was not out and left only because of a misapprehension, Law 31.7’s recall procedure may instead apply.

The next run-up and the call of Time are separate deadlines

For an appeal to be valid under Law 31.3, it must satisfy both limits:

• It is made before the bowler begins the run-up to deliver the next ball—or, for a bowler with no run-up, before the bowling action for that ball begins.
• It is made before the umpire calls Time.

The call of Over is not the same as the call of Time. An appeal about the final ball of an over can remain valid after Over has been called, provided it comes before the following over starts and Time has not been called. Once either applicable deadline has passed, the umpire cannot give the batter out on that late appeal.

“How’s That?” asks about every possible dismissal

Law 31.4 gives the general appeal its broad effect: “How’s That?” covers all ways of being out. The fielders do not have to identify the correct dismissal Law before the umpire can decide it.

For example, fielders may believe a striker has been caught and make a general appeal, while the bowler’s-end umpire concludes that the decisive dismissal is LBW. The decisive point is what the general appeal covers, not the dismissal the fielders expected.

Which on-field umpire answers?

MCC Law 31.5 allocates responsibility by dismissal and end:

• Striker’s-end umpire: Hit wicket (Law 35), Stumped (Law 39), and Run out (Law 38) when the incident occurs at the wicket-keeper’s end.
• Bowler’s-end umpire: all other appeals.

Each umpire answers every matter within that umpire’s jurisdiction. A Not-out answer does not prevent either umpire from answering a further, timely matter within their own jurisdiction—for example, Not out LBW followed by a decision on a separate Run-out incident from the same play.

Help with a fact does not transfer the decision

Under Law 31.6, the umpire who owns the appeal may consult the other umpire about a point of fact that the other was better placed to see. The responsible umpire then gives the decision. The colleague does not take over the entire appeal merely because consultation occurred.

If doubt remains after that consultation, the Law requires Not out. This is the on-field Laws process. A competition with third-umpire referrals or DRS may add a technology process through its playing conditions.

Out is signalled; Not out is called

MCC Law 2.13 requires an Out decision to be signalled by raising an index finger above the head. For Not out, the umpire calls “Not out.” A head shake may communicate the same conclusion informally, but the Law specifies the spoken call.

Law 2.12 permits an umpire to alter a decision only if the alteration is made promptly and does not contradict Law 20.6. That Dead-ball rule matters: once the ball is dead, revoking a decision cannot bring that delivery back into play. Apart from a prompt correction, the decision is final under the MCC Laws. A Player Review is available only where the match’s playing conditions separately provide one.

The captain cannot withdraw an appeal unilaterally

Law 31.8 allows the fielding captain to withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire whose jurisdiction covers it. If the umpire consents, that umpire revokes any Out decision that resulted and recalls the batter. A fielder other than the captain cannot complete this formal withdrawal.

The withdrawal must occur before the ball comes into play for the next delivery. Under MCC Law 20.5, that is when the next run-up or, where there is no run-up, the bowling action begins. If the innings has been completed, the last opportunity is before the umpires leave the field.

Leaving is not always “walking”

A batter may leave because they mistakenly believe they are out or that an umpire has given them out. Under the current 2022 wording of Law 31.7, an umpire who is satisfied that a not-out batter left under a misapprehension must intervene, call and signal Dead ball to prevent further fielding action, and recall the batter.

The recall is available until the ball comes into play for the next delivery. If the incident appeared to complete the innings, the limit is when the umpires leave the field. This is different from withdrawing an appeal: recall under 31.7 corrects the batter’s misapprehension and does not require the fielding captain’s request or consent.

A published new edition is not yet the current baseline

MCC’s 2017 Code, 4th Edition (2026) takes effect on 1 October 2026. It retains the core appeal timing, coverage, jurisdiction, consultation and withdrawal rules described above. Its revised Law 31.7 says either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball when satisfied that the batter left under a reasonable misapprehension of being out, and shall recall the batter.

Until that effective date, the 3rd Edition wording controls ordinary MCC-Laws analysis. MCC notes that some 2026 changes may already be used by governing bodies through playing conditions, so a competition document can produce an earlier or different implementation.

An appeal, an Umpire Review and a Player Review are different steps

The MCC appeal asks an on-field umpire for the original dismissal decision. Under Appendix D of the ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions effective June 2025, an Umpire Review is an on-field umpire’s permitted referral or consultation with the third umpire; a Player Review asks for an eligible on-field decision to be reviewed.

In those Test conditions, a player may review an on-field decision about whether a batter is dismissed, except Timed out. Only the batter involved may review an Out decision; only the fielding captain or acting captain may review a Not-out decision. The request uses the “T” signal and must be made within 15 seconds after the ball becomes dead, with a prompt at 10 seconds. Once requested, it cannot be withdrawn.

Players may not demand that an umpire use an Umpire Review; doing so may amount to dissent. DRS does not cure the absence of the original Law 31 appeal: without an appeal, the on-field umpire cannot first give the batter out. Review availability, review limits and technology protocols must always be checked in the playing conditions appointed for that match.

How to analyse an appeal

1. Identify the ruleset. Start with MCC 2022, then check the competition’s playing conditions for substitutions or technology.
2. Ask whether a fielder appealed. If not, the umpire cannot give Out; separately consider whether an actually-out batter left voluntarily.
3. Check both deadlines. Was the appeal before the next run-up or action and before Time?
4. Treat “How’s That?” broadly. Test every legally available way of being out, not only the fielders’ apparent theory.
5. Allocate jurisdiction. Decide which on-field umpire must answer each matter.
6. Consult only where needed. If doubt remains after the better-placed umpire supplies the fact, rule Not out.
7. Separate later procedures. A prompt correction, withdrawal, mistaken-departure recall and DRS review each has its own authority and deadline.

The appeal comes after Over

Situation: the wicket-keeper takes the sixth ball, the umpire calls Over, and a fielder then appeals before anyone begins the next over. Time has not been called.

MCC 2022 ruling: the appeal can still be valid under Law 31.3. The decisive facts are that the following over has not started and Time has not been called; Over alone does not close the window.

One play contains two questions

Situation: a striker is hit on the pad, the ball runs away, and the batters attempt a run. A general appeal follows when the wicket is broken at the wicket-keeper’s end. The bowler’s-end umpire rules Not out LBW.

MCC 2022 ruling: the striker’s-end umpire may still decide the separate Run-out matter within that umpire’s jurisdiction. “Not out LBW” is not a blanket answer to a further dismissal question from the play.

The next bowler has started running in

Situation: after a possible catch, nobody appeals. The batter remains. The next bowler begins the run-up, and only then does a fielder ask “How’s That?” about the previous delivery.

MCC 2022 ruling: too late under Law 31.3. The previous batter cannot now be given out on that appeal, even if later video appears to show a fair catch. This is a missed appeal, not a decision that DRS can reopen.

A captain tries to recall the batter

Situation: the umpire gives Out after an appeal. Before the next run-up, the fielding captain says the appeal is withdrawn, but the responsible umpire does not consent.

MCC 2022 ruling: the withdrawal does not take effect. Law 31.8 requires both the captain’s withdrawal and the relevant umpire’s consent; meeting the time limit alone is insufficient.

Claims the Laws do not support

• “The wicket breaking makes the batter automatically out.” The dismissal conditions and a valid appeal still have to be dealt with, unless an actually-out batter leaves without one.
• “Over means the appeal is late.” Law 31.3 expressly preserves the window until the next over starts, provided Time has not been called.
• “The fielders must name the dismissal.” “How’s That?” covers every way of being out.
• “Either umpire can give any decision.” Law 31.5 divides jurisdiction; consultation does not erase it.
• “The captain can take back an appeal.” The relevant umpire must consent, and the Law 31.8 deadline must be met.
• “DRS replaces appealing.” A Player Review examines an eligible on-field decision under competition conditions; it is not the original appeal.

Governing-body sources and effective versions

• Marylebone Cricket Club — Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code, 3rd Edition (2022), Law 31: Appeals
• Marylebone Cricket Club — Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code, 3rd Edition (2022), Laws 2.12–2.13: decisions and signals
• Marylebone Cricket Club — Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code, 3rd Edition (2022), Laws 20.5–20.6: ball coming into play and finality of Dead ball
• Marylebone Cricket Club — 4th Edition (2026) announcement and 1 October 2026 effective date
• Marylebone Cricket Club — Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code, 4th Edition (2026), Law 31 (effective 1 October 2026)
• International Cricket Council — Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions, effective June 2025, clause 31 and Appendix D
• International Cricket Council — Decision Review System overview and competition-playing-conditions note

Checked on 26 August 2026 against the current MCC 2022 Laws, MCC’s published October 2026 replacement, and the named ICC Test conditions. The MCC Laws are the baseline; the playing conditions appointed for a particular country, age grade, league or tournament may amend them and determine whether DRS or third-umpire referrals apply.