MCC to vote on rule changes

[Gunner_Mania]

The MCC members are set to vote on a number of changes to the Laws of Cricket at the annual general meeting at Lord's on Wednesday and, if passed, the changes will come into effect on October 1. The major amendments concern the umpires offering light to batsmen, rules on boundary fielding, run outs where the batsman loses his bat after making his ground, and penalties on batsmen who damage the pitch. The MCC members will also be asked to cede authority on passing new Laws of Cricket to the MCC Laws sub-committee and main committee. The main change to the law relating to umpires suspending play as a result of the fitness of the ground, weather or light, is that they will no longer "offer the light" to the batting side, but decide to suspend play themselves when they consider it to be "unreasonable or dangerous". In view of the increasing frequency of athletic saves on the boundary, the MCC has created a law to clarify when the ball is beyond the boundary. The Laws sub-committee felt "it would be wrong to allow a fielder, seeing a ball flying over his head and over the boundary, to retreat beyond the boundary and then to jump up and parry the ball back towards the field of play." The change will require the fielder's first contact with the ball is when he is grounded within the boundary or, if he is in the air, his final contact with the ground before touching the ball was inside the boundary. With regards to run outs, the change proposed is that a batsman will be not out if, having grounded some part of his foot behind the crease, he loses contact with the ground at the time the stumps are broken; for example, if his bat gets jammed in a bowler's footmark and he drops it after having entered the crease. Explanation of the proposed changes The changes to laws 3.8 and 3.9 relate to the umpires suspending play as a result of the fitness of the ground, weather or light. The main change is that the umpires will no longer offer the light to the batting side. It was felt that, at present, the decision to stay on or come off the field was often made on tactical grounds based on what best suits the batting side, rather than on grounds of safety or visibility. In bad light, umpires will now only suspend play when they consider it to be unreasonable or dangerous. Unreasonable is to be regarded as being inappropriate, rather than conditions simply not being very good. The new law should result in less playing time being lost. This concept has been trialled by the ECB in county cricket with generally positive feedback. The changes to laws 12.4 and 12.5 involve the toss. In law 12.4, it was felt that it would be good practice to say that the toss should be made in the presence of one or both of the umpires. Law 3.1 already states that the umpires shall be at the ground at least 45 minutes before the scheduled start of play. Furthermore, laws 1.2, 3.3 and 3.4 lay down a number of points that need to be agreed between the umpires and the captains before the toss and the laws sub-committee thought having at least one umpire at the toss would help formalise the whole process. Some people have expressed concerns over this new law for certain games at amateur level where there are no formal umpires but the laws must set out what is best practice. Laws 1.2, 3.3 and 3.4 have been in since 2000 without drawing complaints. The new 12.5 forces the captain winning the toss to notify his decision to bat or field to the other captain straightaway. The current law states the notification could be delayed until 10 minutes before the scheduled start of play. The sub-committee heard of examples where this law was being exploited as a means of gamesmanship to give the other team less time to prepare. Law 17 concerns practice on the field. Law 17.1 has clarified the area that can never be used for practice as being the pitch and the two strips either side of it. Laws 17.2 and 17.3 clearly outline when and what practice may take place on the rest of the square (17.2) and on the outfield (17.3). A ban has been placed on fielders partaking in practice with a coach or 12th man during play. The club has noticed that such practice is becoming more prevalent and felt it should not be allowed. With slow over rates becoming an increasing problem, the fact that practice should not waste any time is reinforced more strongly than before. It is also clarified that deliberately bowling the ball into the ground in practice will contravene Law 42.3 (The match ball - changing its condition). A new 9.4 has been created to clarify further when the ball is beyond the boundary. In recent years, increasingly athletic pieces of fielding on the boundary have brought this area of the law into the spotlight. The laws sub-committee felt that it would be wrong to allow a fielder, seeing a ball flying over his head and over the boundary, to retreat beyond the boundary and then to jump up and parry the ball back towards the field of play. Consequently, law 19.4(i) requires that the fielder's first contact with the ball must be when some part of his person is grounded within the boundary or, if he is airborne, that his final contact with the ground before touching the ball was within the boundary. Law 24.5 (fair delivery - the feet) has been amended in relation to the landing of the bowler's front foot. It became apparent that some slow bowlers were bowling with their front foot going right across to the other side of the stumps. This meant that a bowler could, for example, say that he was bowling over the wicket but release the ball as though bowling round the wicket. The Laws sub-committee felt that this is not fair, particularly taking into account the positioning of the sight-screen, and consequently altered the Law so that the bowler's front foot must land with some part of his foot, whether grounded or raised, between the return crease on the side on which he runs up past the wicket and an imaginary line joining the two middle stumps. Law 28.1 (wicket put down) has been amended so that any part of the striker's bat is capable of putting the wicket down. Although it is a rare occurrence, the Club is aware of situations where the bat has broken while hitting the ball and a part of the bat has hit the stumps, putting the wicket down. The Laws sub-committee felt that, whilst this would be an unfortunate method of dismissal for a batsman, a part of a bat that has broken off should be treated in the same way as a bat that has fallen out of the batsman's hand. Law 29.1 (When out of his ground) has been amended so that a batsman who has been running to make his ground will be considered to be in his ground if, having grounded some part of his foot behind the popping crease, and still with continuing forward momentum, he loses contact with the ground. This will particularly be useful in televised games where a player has clearly made his ground but, at the moment that the wicket was put down, he is not in contact with the ground because he is running and, for example, his bat has flicked up off the ground after passing through a bowlers' foothole. It is in the nature of running that in every stride, both feet are simultaneously not in contact with the ground. It would therefore be unjust if a batsman were to be out in such circumstances. Law 42.14 (Batsman damaging the pitch) has been amended so that the batting side receives one less warning than under the current Law. Currently, on the first offence the side is warned; on the second offence, there is a further warning and any runs scored are disallowed; on all subsequent offences, any runs scored are disallowed, 5 penalty runs are awarded to the fielding side and a report is lodged with the appropriate Governing body. In the proposed new version, there is a warning on the first instance of the batsman damaging the pitch, but any repetition will see any runs scored disallowed, five penalty runs awarded to the fielding side and a report being lodged with the appropriate governing body. This is consistent with law 42.13 (fielder damaging pitch), where there is only one warning before penalty runs are issued.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/458423.html

[Sachinism]

Some good changes. Like the run out one. I take it no more fancy catches on the boundary.

[SJS50]

Some good changes. Like the run out one. I take it no more fancy catches on the boundary.

I think they are all good. And this does not prevent acrobatic catches as long as the law is not misused. For example as the law stands today, the fielder can, actually stand outside waiting for the high shot and just as it is going over head, jump from his position outside the ground, knock the ball forward and upward, and then come within the ground limits to complete the catch. Surely this isn't really fair. A fielder is not being prevented from jumping up, knocking the ball forward, go/fall outside and come back in to complete the catch, as long as he does not go outside the boundary, before touching the ball.

[Nova]

I didn't read everything...does it say anything about the use of flood lights in case of bad light? I think this could be changed.

[vvvslaxman]

I like law 29.1 change.

[thevortex]

Well, I have been bookmarking this thread for later review and posting. Now that I have gone through this, there are quite a few good things as well as a few senseless things. Lets get the bad out of the way first. 1) Bowlers must not practice by banging the ball into the ground when bowling to mid off or mid on? Did these MCC Club people ever play cricket? Banging the ball into the grass which is typically there in that area does NOT alter the condition of the ball. And it is essential for a fast bowler or even a spinner like Kumble to get rotations going and eliminate any stiffness of arm. Nothing better than to bowl a ball into the ground in such cases given that you cannot really bowl at 130 kmph to the fielder standing a few yards away. You hardly see any cricket ground without grass in that portion and it really is not problematic in any way. 2) Why should fielders be penalized for acrobatism? What is wrong if a fielder sees a ball coming in his direction but way above his reach and then running back outside the boundary rope and take a flying catch landing inside the playing area? That is innovative and good for the game. Switch hits are allowed with impunity but these are disallowed? What gives? 3) Right arm over spinners are ending up with their front foot on the other side as if they are bowling from around the wicket? Pardon me, but this is manure. How in the world do the MCC club members think that the umpire has visibility in such cases? And how exactly does a right arm bowler (okay, spinner) come over the wicket and then have his leading leg (left one) land beyond the leg stump at the non striker's side? Has anybody seen anything like that happen ever? At best I see the bowler having his foot in line with the stumps and thats about it. The rest of it about the run-out, practice with the 12th man, toss and particularly the light related rules are all good.

[thevortex]

How many here think that the second short ball of the over rule is being understood and implemented consistently by the umpires in limited overs cricket? Also would you like for above-head bouncers to be called a wide or a no-ball? The thing is if a batsman gets out to a head high bouncer then he is still out. If he had missed it it would have been called a wide. What do people make of that?

[Gunner_Mania]

I would like all noballs to have a free hit. A noball is a noball, front foot or otherwise.

[Holysmoke]

I like the earlier rule of no-balls being a free-hit on the no-ball itself and not the next ball.

[Tapioca]

3) Right arm over spinners are ending up with their front foot on the other side as if they are bowling from around the wicket? Pardon me, but this is manure. How in the world do the MCC club members think that the umpire has visibility in such cases? And how exactly does a right arm bowler (okay, spinner) come over the wicket and then have his leading leg (left one) land beyond the leg stump at the non striker's side? Has anybody seen anything like that happen ever? At best I see the bowler having his foot in line with the stumps and thats about it.

They must have had some specific bowler(s) in mind. Wonder who. Never seen anyone doing it

[Precambrian]

They must have had some specific bowler(s) in mind. Wonder who. Never seen anyone doing it

There aren't any now in International cricket I can recollect, but distinctly remember Aravinda De Silva bowling like that a few times, and I was wondering why he couldn't do that around the stumps.

[thevortex]

I would like all noballs to have a free hit. A noball is a noball' date=' front foot or otherwise.[/quote'] Gunner - what are your thoughts on the post #7 in this thread? Over the head balls - should they be wides or noballs?

[thevortex]

There aren't any now in International cricket I can recollect' date=' but distinctly remember Aravinda De Silva bowling like that a few times, and I was wondering why he couldn't do that around the stumps.[/quote'] What did Aravinda do? Come over the wicket and have his front foot beyond the leg stump in the non striker's area?

[Gunner_Mania]

Gunner - what are your thoughts on the post #7 in this thread? Over the head balls - should they be wides or noballs?

I think they should be wides. If a batsman plays at a wide delivery and gets out, he gets out. If he misses it is a wide. If a ball is pitched six stumps outside offstump and a batsman slashes ast it and gets a nick he is out, but if he misses it it would have been a ide. so this should also be treated the same way.

[thevortex]

I think they should be wides. If a batsman plays at a wide delivery and gets out' date=' he gets out. If he misses it is a wide. If a ball is pitched six stumps outside offstump and a batsman slashes ast it and gets a nick he is out, but if he misses it it would have been a ide. so this should also be treated the same way.[/quote'] On the surface, most if not all would agree with what you say. But consider this from the MCC rule book: 6. Dangerous and unfair bowling (a) Bowling of fast short pitched balls (i) The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration. (ii) Any delivery which, after pitching, passes or would have passed over head height of the striker standing upright at the crease, although not threatening physical injury, shall be included with bowling under (i) both when the umpire is considering whether the bowling of fast short pitched balls has become dangerous and unfair and after he has so decided. The umpire shall call and signal No ball for each such delivery. (b) Bowling of high full pitched balls (i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. (ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. 7. Dangerous and unfair bowling - action by the umpire (a) As soon as the umpire at the bowler's end decides under 6(a) above that the bowling of fast short pitched balls has become dangerous and unfair, or, except as in 8 below, there is an instance of dangerous and unfair bowling as defined in 6(b) above, he shall call and signal No ball and, when the ball is dead, caution the bowler, inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what has occured. This caution shall continue to apply throughout the innings. (b) If there is any further instance of dangerous and unfair bowling by the same bowler in the same innings, the umpire at the bowler's end shall repeat the above procedure and indicate to the bowler that this is a final warning. Both the above caution and final warning shall continue to apply even though the bowler may later change ends. © Should there be any further repetition by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall (i) call and signal No ball. (ii) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith. The over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled the previous over nor be allowed to bowl the next over. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings. (iii) report the occurrence to the other umpire, the batsmen and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side. (iv) report the occurrence, with the other umpire, as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and bowler concerned. http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html So, now tell me why should not those balls be called no-balls?

[thevortex]

Hmm...anybody think twice about the head high bouncer rule now? Or am I the only one?

[Precambrian]

What did Aravinda do? Come over the wicket and have his front foot beyond the leg stump in the non striker's area?

Yes. Atleast in his early career. The match I saw was a very old one. Probably early 90s

[Tapioca]

Hmm...anybody think twice about the head high bouncer rule now? Or am I the only one?

The beamers cannot be called wides, right ? Same logic with head high balls. The definition of no-ball in this context is that it is one that does not give the batsman a fair chance to hit.

[thevortex]

Yes. Atleast in his early career. The match I saw was a very old one. Probably early 90s

Hmm...did he come over the wicket then? I wonder what happened to the line of sight of the umpire. Poor guy could not have been able to see much of the line or anything na?

The beamers cannot be called wides' date=' right ? Same logic with head high balls. The definition of no-ball in this context is that it is one that does not give the batsman a fair chance to hit.[/quote'] You are not disagreeing, I take it? I am only asking that these above the head bouncers be given as no-balls in line with what is being said here. That way even if a batsman touches it, he is still not out. Presently these are being given as wides and because of this, when a batsman touches it and gets out, well, he is out.

[thevortex]

Well, Gunner and others before the disappointment at India's performance takes centre stage and drowns this minor point down - what are your thoughts? After reviewing what the rulebook has to say on this subject.