Monthly Archives: August 2013

Poetry: The Victor by C.W. Longenecker

August 8, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , Leave a comment

Winning is done mostly in the mind: you have to think you can and that is the message of today’s poem.

If you think you are beaten, you are.
If you think you dare not, you don’t.
If you like to win but think you can’t,
It’s almost a cinch you won’t.
If you think you’ll lose, you’re lost.
For out in the world we find
Success begins with a fellow’s will.
It’s all in the state of mind.
If you think you are out classed, you are.
You’ve got to think high to rise.
You’ve got to be sure of your-self before
You can ever win the prize.
Life’s battles don’t always go
To the stronger or faster man.
But sooner or later, the man who wins
Is the man who thinks he can.

The Ashes: The Silicon Tape Fiasco … what do the laws say?

August 7, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Much has been made in the press, Australian principally granted, of an allegation, which has been denied in the strongest possible terms, that certain players participating in the current Ashes series have used silicon tape to mask the hotspot “flare” caused by an edge.

Law 6 of the Laws of Cricket deals with the Bat and provides:

1. The bat

The bat consists of two parts, a handle and a blade.

2. Measurements

All provisions in sections 3 to 6 below are subject to the measurements and restrictions stated in Appendix E.

3. The handle

(a) One end of the handle is inserted into a recess in the blade as a means of joining the handle and the blade. The part of the handle that is then wholly outside the blade is defined to be the upper portion of the handle. It is a straight shaft for holding the bat. The remainder of the handle is its lower portion used purely for joining the blade and the handle together. It is not part of the blade but, solely in interpreting 5 and 6 below, references to the blade shall be considered to extend also to the lower portion of the handle where relevant.

(b) The handle is to be made principally of cane and/or wood, glued where necessary and bound with twine along the upper portion.

(c) Providing 7 below is not contravened, the upper portion may be covered with materials solely to provide a surface suitable for gripping. Such covering is an addition and is not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

(d) Notwithstanding 4(c) and 5 below, both the twine binding and the covering grip may extend beyond the junction of the upper and lower portions, to cover part of the shoulders as defined in Appendix E.

4. The blade

(a) The blade comprises the whole of the bat apart from the handle as defined above. The blade has a face, a back, a toe, sides and shoulders. See Appendix E.

(b) The blade shall consist solely of wood.

(c) No material may be placed on or inserted into either the blade or the lower portion of the handle other than as permitted in 3(d) above and 5 and 6 below, together with the minimal adhesives or adhesive tape used solely for fixing these items, or for fixing the handle to the blade.

5. Covering the blade

All bats may have commercial identifications on the blade. Type A and Type B bats may have no other covering on the blade except as permitted in 6 below. Type C bats may have a cloth covering on the blade. This may be treated as specified in 6 below.

Such covering is additional to the blade and is not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

6. Protection and repair

Providing neither 4 above nor 7 below is contravened,

(a) solely for the purposes of either

(i) protection from surface damage to the face, sides and shoulders of the blade or

(ii) repair to the blade after damage material that is not rigid, either at the time of its application to the blade or subsequently, may be placed on these surfaces. Any such material shall not extend over any part of the back of the blade except in the case of (ii) above and then only when it is applied as a continuous wrapping covering the damaged area.

(b) solid material may be inserted into the blade for repair after damage other than surface damage. Additionally, for protection from damage, for Types B and C, material may be inserted at the toe and/or along the sides, parallel to the face of the blade.

The only material permitted for any insertion is wood with minimal essential adhesives.

(c) to prevent damage to the toe, material may be placed on that part of the blade but shall not extend over any part of the face, back or sides of the blade.

(d) the surface of the blade may be treated with non-solid materials to improve resistance to moisture penetration and/or mask natural blemishes in the appearance of the wood. Save for the purpose of giving a homogeneous appearance by masking natural blemishes, such treatment must not materially alter the colour of the blade.

Any materials referred to in (a), (b), (c) or (d) above are additional to the blade and not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

7. Damage to the ball

(a) For any part of the bat, covered or uncovered, the hardness of the constituent materials and the surface texture thereof shall not be such that either or both could cause unacceptable damage to the ball.

(b) Any material placed on any part of the bat, for whatever purpose, shall similarly not be such that it could cause unacceptable damage to the ball.

(c) For the purposes of this Law, unacceptable damage is deterioration greater than normal wear and tear caused by the ball striking the uncovered wooden surface of the blade.

8. Contact with the ball

In these Laws,

(a) reference to the bat shall imply that the bat is held in the batsman’s hand or a glove worn on his hand, unless stated otherwise.

(b) contact between the ball and either (i) the bat itself

or (ii) the batsman’s hand holding the bat

or (iii) any part of a glove worn on the batsman’s hand holding the bat

or (iv) any additional materials permitted under 3, 5 or 6 above shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being struck by the bat.

The placing of silicon tape on the bat for a purpose other than as an adhesive or to prevent or repair damage to the blade, shoulders or edges of the bat would obviously fall foul of this law.

The question then becomes: what is the punishment for breaching Law 6?

There is no specific provisions of the Laws that deal with punishment for breach. The ICC Code of Conduct for Players does provided some guidance however. It provides inter alia that the following will be Level 1 offenses under the Code:

1. In clause 2.1.1 a breach of the ICC’s Clothing and Equipment Regulations during an International Match; and

2. In clause 2.1.8 conduct that is relatively minor but that brings the game into disrepute or is contrary to the spirit of the game.

Apropos clause 2.1.1 above the ICC Clothing and Equipment Regulations provide in Part D Section 2 that:

It shall also be prohibited under these regulations for any individual to wear any clothing or use any equipment that has been changed, altered or transformed (whether to comply with these regulations or otherwise) in any way that, in the opinion of any Match Official, undermines the professional standards that are required of all elite players.

The penalty for such an offence, if proven, is set out in Article 7 of the Code of Conduct which prescribes that for a first offence the sanction is a warning / reprimand and/or the imposition of a fine of up to 50% of the applicable Match Fee.

It would seem likely, in my view, that if a player has put silicon on the edge of his bat for the explicit purpose of defeating the DRS there is another possible charge that could be laid that carries with it much more severe sanction. It is a Level 2 offence under the Code for a player to make any attempt to manipulate an International Match for inappropriate strategic or tactical reasons. An argument could be made that wilfully purporting to defeat the DRS is an attempt to manipulate the game. The penalty for such an offence is the imposition of a fine unto 90% of the players match fee and / or unto two Suspension Points. A single suspension point would see a player miss a One Day Match or a T20 International. A penalty of two suspension points could see a player miss a test match.

All in all this is a sorry saga that needs to be dealt with with alacrity. If there is a case there for anyone to answer, the match referee must move swiftly to deal with it. The more likely course though is that there is no case to answer because the test match in question is completed and no complaint was made during the match.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see what steps are taken by the MCC and ICC in the next round of rule changes to pre-empt attempts to thwart the DRS and to install a clear offence in the Code for doing just that.

Memo to the MCC and ICC: change the laws or lose the fans … you choose!

August 7, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , 2 Comments

The laws of cricket are an evolving ever changing beast. It seems like ne’er a year goes by when some tinkering to the rules is done by the MCC and the ICC. Based on my current viewing of test match cricket over the last 12 months, and indeed longer, I think there are some rules of the game that require immediate attention by the framers of the laws.

For the uninitiated: the Marylebone Cricket Club is the framer of the Laws of Cricket and they apply to all two innings matches. The International Cricket Council has supplemented those laws with the Standard Playing Conditions for Test Matches and the Standard Playing Conditions for One Day Internationals.

The last major changes to the laws occurred on 30 September 2010 when the law regarding bad light, among other laws, was amended to grant the umpires sole discretion on the issue of whether the light is too dangerous for play to continue.

There are three changes to the Laws of Cricket / the Standard Playing Conditions for Test Matches that I would like to see implemented for the good of the game. They are:

1. Use of Substitute Fielders

Law 2: Substitutes provides:

In cricket, a substitute may be brought on for an injured fielder. However, a substitute may not bat, bowl, keep wicket or act as captain. The original player may return if he has recovered. A batsman who becomes unable to run may have a runner, who completes the runs while the batsman continues batting. Alternatively, a batsman may retire hurt or ill, and may return later to resume his innings if he recovers.

This Law has been amplified in the Standard Playing Conditions in this way:

If a fielder fails to take the field with his side at the start of the match or at any later time, or leaves the field during a session of play, the umpire shall be informed of the reason for his absence, and he shall not thereafter come on to the field during a session of play without the consent of the umpire. (See Law 2.6 as modified). The umpire shall give such consent as soon as practicable.

If the player is absent from the field for longer than 8 minutes:

2.2.1 the player shall not be permitted to bowl in that innings after his return until he has been on the field for at least that length of playing time for which he was absent. Such absence or penalty time absent shall be carried over into a new day’s play and in the event of a follow-on or forfeiture, this restriction will, if necessary, continue into the second innings.

2.2.2 the player shall not be permitted to bat unless or until, in the aggregate, he has returned to the field and/or his side’s innings has been in progress for at least that length of playing time for which he has been absent or, if earlier, when his side has lost five wickets.

The restriction in clauses 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 above shall not apply if the player has suffered an external blow (as opposed to an internal injury such as a pulled muscle) whilst participating earlier in the match and consequently been forced to leave the field. Nor shall it apply if the player has been absent for very exceptional and wholly acceptable reasons (other than injury or illness).

In the event of a fieldsman already being off the field at the commencement of an interruption in play through ground, weather or light conditions or for other exceptional circumstances, he shall be allowed to count any such stoppage time as playing time, provided that he personally informs the umpires when he is fit enough to take the field had play been in progress.

Similarly, if at the commencement of an interruption in play through ground, weather or light conditions or for other exceptional circumstances, a player is on the field but still has some unexpired penalty time remaining from a previous absence, he shall automatically be allowed to count any such stoppage time as playing time.

2.2.3 Substitute fielders shall only be permitted in cases of injury, illness or other wholly acceptable reasons. ‘Wholly acceptable reasons’ should be limited to extreme circumstances and should not include what is commonly referred to as a ‘comfort break’.

If the current Ashes series is anything to go by the restriction on being off the field for more than 8 minutes is being used as a basis to subvert Standard Condition 2.2.3. Players from both sides in this series appear to take one over jaunts off the field seeming at will and at times whenever they choose. A good example is the case of Graeme Swann who appears to be off the field consistently in the over before he is called on to bowl. What could he be doing in the change room that would constitute a “wholly acceptable reason” as defined in 2.2.3. Swann is not the only offender but at the moment is not in breach of the laws because he is only off for one over and thus is not in breach of the 8 minute limitation set by the rules.

I would simply amend the Standard Condition here by removing the reference to the 8 minute rule. These players are professional cricketers: surely they can prepare themselves for a session of play, particularly given the massive about of support staff they have supporting them, and that preparation should include the emptying of ones bladder or getting a massage preparatory to bowling.

A mockery is being made of the laws at the moment and this change must be made.

2. Who can be a substitute fielder?

I have already set out the Law of Cricket dealing with substitute fielders above. Standard Playing Condition 1.2 deals with the nomination of players and provides:

1.2.1 Each captain shall nominate 11 players plus a maximum of 4 substitute fielders in writing to the ICC Match Referee before the toss. No player (member of the playing eleven) may be changed after the nomination without the consent of the opposing captain.

1.2.2 Only those nominated as substitute fielders shall be entitled to act as substitute fielders during the match, unless the ICC Match Referee, in exceptional circumstances, allows subsequent additions.

1.2.3 All those nominated including those nominated as substitute fielders, must be eligible to play for that particular team and by such nomination the nominees shall warrant that they are so eligible.

1.2.4 In addition, by their nomination, the nominees shall be deemed to have agreed to abide by all the applicable ICC Regulations pertaining to international cricket and in particular, the Clothing and Equipment Regulations, the Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel (hereafter referred to as the ICC Code of Conduct), the Anti-Racism Code for Players and Player Support Personnel, the Anti-Doping Code and the Anti-Corruption Code.

Can anyone explain to me why a team needs 4 substitute fielders? In the current Ashes series we have seen the England Fielding Coach on the field at semi-regular intervals as a substitute. I have two problems with that:

1. How can it be within the spirit of the game to employ a specialist fielding coach to help rest your players during the course of the game. The replacement of a tired fast bowler with one of the best fielders in England can hardly be fair can it?

2. It makes an absolute mockery of the tradition of selecting a 12 man team for the game to be played.

I would make an amendment to the law in this way:

1. I would reduce the number of substitutes back to 1 substitute being allowed per team as a maximum with each teams having the ability to name an “emergency” fielder in the event that 2 of their players get injured.

2. I would place a limitation on who can be a substitute fielder. My limitation would be to the effect that the substitute fielder may only be nominated in place of the official 12th man of the team in circumstances only where the named 12th man can play in a first class game else where whilst the test is being played AND the player nominated is a player from within the playing portion of the squad of an away country OR the player nominated is a player from within the state, province or county squad based at the ground at which the game is being played.

3. The imbibement of drinks at the fall of a wicket OR upon a DRS referral OR upon any other break in play

I have long been frustrated by the phalanx of “runners” that invade the field with eskies and drinks coolers at the fall of each wicket or when there is a DRS review or any time at all that any player is feeling a little thirsty.

Standard Playing Condition 15.3 is instructive and provides:

An individual player may be given a drink either on the boundary edge or at the fall of a wicket, on the field, provided that no playing time is wasted. No other drinks shall be taken onto the field without the permission of the umpires.

There is no other law in the game that is flouted more than this. Equally there is no other law in the game (DRS shenanigans aside) that receives more comment that this, at least from the guys I watch cricket with.

I come back to this point: these are professional cricketers nay they are professional athletes. The game has always been played in 2 hour sessions and their bodies should be conditioned to the rigours of a two hour stint in the field. I will not be convinced that a drink every time a wicket falls is necessary: I mean in a session when a wicket does not fall, when one would presuppose the fielding team is working harder because there has been no wickets, the fielding team does not get a drink do they?

I would amend the Standard Playing Condition to remove the words “or the fall of a wicket, on the field”. I would also consider removing the ability of the players to request a drink but would simply empower the umpires to decline such a request rather than the accession to each request that seems to happen now.

So they are my rule changes: I have been harping on about them long enough on twitter and to mates that it was time to put them down on the blog.

Many of you will have been expecting me to write about the DRS here. Enough has been written about it already for mine and I see no benefit in rehashing that old ground. My personal view has remained the same since its introduction: it should either be used to review every decision or not used at all.

The Ashes: The Poms retain the Urn … what now for Australia?

August 6, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

It is trite to say it but if the Ashes are staying in England what really is the interest for Australia and its fans in the last two test matches of the series? That statement belies the fact that no Australian cricketer, pundit or fan would accept anything other than a supreme effort against the English and a focus on beating the enemy that they are. That said: when I started thinking about this post I was definitely in the camp of using the next two test matches to experiment with the line up to find what is our best line up in advance of the “return” bout between the two teams starting in Australia in November.

With that in mind I was pondering resting Ryan Harris for the next test match, both to rest his injury prone body and at give Jackson Bird a run. I was also going to suggest that James Faulkner be given a run to give him experience and that the batting order be tinkered so as to give Matthew Wade a run and to try Phil Hughes in his “best” position (opening).

Then I had an epiphany of sorts: one of my biggest complaints as a fan of the game and someone who blogs about it is that Australia has, in recent years, changed its teams, at times, with an alacrity akin to that of the Red Bull pit crew (except when it is Mark Webber’s tires they are changing), particularly when the team has been losing. By extension I have complained vociferously that the Australian NSP has made too many changes and has not stuck with players. To go down the path of using the next two games as trial games of sorts would have been to suggest that the Cricket Australia do exactly that which I have been so swift to lament.

That being the case, my immediate answer to the question I pose is this: from Australia I want to see more of exactly the same as that which we saw at Old Trafford and I want to see if from the same team, injury permitting. My premise is, if this is the best team Australia can put on the field then the selectors need to stick with that team and back it to win.

Of course I am worried about Ryan Harris and his knee BUT the importance of getting on a roll against England in advance of the “return bout” in Australia and to have the team that played so well in Old Trafford build into a consistent unit in advance of that bout at Chester-le-Street and the Oval is more important than being conservative in the “management” player health.

So, on the premise that Australia must select the same team as that which played at Old Trafford and does so, what else must we see from the Australian team for this tour to be considered to be a success? Here are the three further things I want to see from the Australian team:

1. Australia needs to win: It is all well and good for Australia to lift their performance like they did in Old Trafford. However, performing better than expected and not winning is only a habit that can go on so long. The losing streak of this streak (draws including) is becoming ever longer and a win would do wonders for the confidence of a rebuilding team.

2. A hundred from a batsman OTHER than M Clarke: Michael Clarke continues to score runs in difficult circumstances. The fact is that the last time an Australia batter other than Michael Clarke scored a hundred was 22 innings ago on 22 November 2012. Someone else needs to share the load of scoring runs for Australia and take some of the pressure of the Captain and his ailing back.

3. The Captain supporting the spinner: I mentioned in my post from earlier today that I did not think that Michael Clarke had captained Nathan Lyon particularly well at Old Trafford. Limited bowling time on day 3 when the “going got tough” was a strange move and smacked of the Captain not particularly supporting his spinner. This must change in these coming two tests because there are at least 3 test matches in Australia where the bowling of a spinner will be vital to victory.

So there is my wish list: the same team, a win, a hundred and the spinner getting a fair go. If that it what Australia presents in the next two games then I will be very happy and a reckon most Australian pundits and fans will be too.