Tag Archives: ICC

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.

Cricket Umpiring: is it time to jettison “neutral umpires”?

October 5, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

This weekend brings the curtain down on the career of, for mine, the best umpire of my generation Simon Taufel. The statistics do not lie: he won five consecutive ICC Umpire of the Year awards. Since making his international debut in 1999, Taufel has stood in 74 tests, 174 one day internationals and 29 T20 internationals. Simply, he retires as one of the best in the game.

Why then has Simon Taufel’s retirement led me to put fingers to keyboard to write on the topic of umpiring and, more specifically, the issue of “neutral umpires”?

Well the answer is simple, because of the ICC’s slavish focus on the “neutrality” of umpires, Taufel has umpired only 2 of his 74 tests in his home country and, despite being the best umpire in the game in 2003 and 2007, was only able to stand in a World Cup final in 2011 when Australia did not make the final.

I, for one, think this situation is a travesty. The fact that the best umpire in the game has been restrained from umpiring in his home country and could not stand in a fixture that, aside from test match cricket, represents the pinnacle of the game of itself shows the silliness of the present approach to umpiring from the ICC.

For those who don’t follow the great game, since 2001 the ICC has decreed that for test matches and the matches in key tournaments such World Cups only umpires not from the countries of the combatants may stand. This situation arose out of a series of “controversies” relating to allegedly biased umpiring from “home” umpires.

Everyone who follows cricket will remember an example of umpiring that did not quite seem right. I recollect some of the umpiring of the Australian umpires of the 80s that at times was questionable at best. The Rana v Gatting incident brought to light systematically questionable umpiring in the subcontinent. I have read the story of Australia’s first prime minister, Sir Edmund Barton, and his umpiring in a New South Wales v MCC game in the late 1880s (he was the good umpire of two). One could come up with an example to suit any team that you follow.

In the face of ongoing questioning of umpires by the visiting teams, the press and fans of the game first the ICC moved to a system of having one home and one neutral umpire (hence Simon Taufel being able to stand in two home test matches at the start of his career) and then finally ruled that the only way to avoid controversy was to have two neutral umpires.

I have a deep seated dislike for the term “neutral” umpire: the fact is, and I paraphrase the great Harold Bird here, all umpires are neutral. If they are not neutral why are they umpires? I concede that this view means that I have never been a fan of “neutral” umpires being appointed for all test matches. I never saw the need and have always thought that players and press should simply just accept the decisions of the umpires on the field.

Equally I am a realist and thus have ultimately accepted that the appointment of neutral umpires is the way the game is going to be played. My acceptance of this position has changed on reflection since Simon Taufel’s early retirement for one very simple reason: technology.

Cricket today has available to it technology, except in Sri Lanka it is conceded, like it has never had before. The referral system has been put in place in most test matches (except where India plays) and all international tournaments of note to protect against the wrong decisions being allowed to be made.

With the referral system and, indeed, the minute level of scrutiny of each and every decision made by the umpires is it now the case that the ICC can be comfortable that “neutral” umpires are no longer necessary? Surely given the scrutiny of the decisions of our elite umpires the time is now to let those elite umpires stand in their home countries and to make it possible for umpires like Simon Taufel to stand in the finals of World Cups.

Forget that umpires by definition are not biased (naive as that view obviously is), any prospect of an umpire being openly biased (if it were to occur) has to be diminished to basically nil because the result of acting in a biased manner would now be the end of that umpires career.

Now some of you may suggest that my view here does not accord with my previously published views about the need for a DRS system in cricket and respecting the umpire’s decision. My views there are not changed. I still believe that DRS is unnecessary and the umpire is always right. Rather, what I see now is an opportunity to at least allow the best umpires in the world to stand at home by using the very technology that I dislike. That way someone like Simon Taufel would be able to spend his summers at home with his family and, one assumes, umpire for longer.

Of course all of the foregoing is never likely to happen, because the block of countries that run the game are led by a country that does not trust the referral system so I expect the imposition of “neutral” umpires to continue for some time to come. The real risk with that approach is that sooner or later the elite of cricket umpires will decline to stand in tests (example: Peter Willey) because of the time spent away from home: that is a scenario that can not be let happen.

To finish were I started: the international career of Simon Taufel comes to an end this weekend as he takes on the role of Umpire Performance and Training Manager. Our future umpiring stocks, no matter where they come from, are in very good hands.

Cricket’s Decision Review System: a time for change?

June 26, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , 2 Comments

The Decision Review System (DRS) is again in the press this week after the International Cricket Council’s Chief Executives Committee (CEC) meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

The CEC recommended to the Board of the ICC that the DRS system be universally applied and be mandatory for all Tests and One Day Internationals.  An important caveat was put the “mandatory” usage of this technology in that its usage is “subject to the Members’ ability to finance and obtain the required technology”.

Before wading into this debate, it is important to establish some key factual matters:

  1. The DRS is presently used when both combatants agree to its usage.
  2. The Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) has consistently declined to agree to DRS being used in fixtures it’s team is involved in.
  3. Presently, the Sri Lankan Cricket Board can not afford to use DRS technology and thus the present Sri Lanka v Pakistan Test Series being played in Sri Lanka is going without it.
  4. The current system for referrals to DRS sees each side have the opportunity to refer an unlimited amount of decisions of the umpires until they get two referrals incorrect.

The decision of the ICC CEC is obviously a step forward for cricket and the efforts of the CEC ought be acknowledged with acclamation.  The problem is: the decision does not mean anything will change.  There are two reasons for this:

  1. The BCCI have, since the announcement of the CEC’s recommendation and consistent with their previous practice, shown significant reticence to accept the use of the DRS technology in any form.
  2. There are cricket boards of control who simply can not afford the technology which means we will still see series occur where the technology will not be used.

I should declare here that I have no cavil with the BCCI using its power in world cricket to shape the game the way they wish it to be played.  Simply put, the present state of affairs is nothing different to when the MCC ran the game from Lords and the cards were stacked heavily in favour in the anglo-saxon teams.  Whilst I would prefer that a decision was made in the interests of the game rather than one particular team, they have earned the right, through the dollars that they bring to the game, to act in their own interests.

One issue that I am not fully across is why it is the each member board that is required to go to the expense of supplying DRS technology.  I would have thought it would be a natural extension of the ICC CEC’s recommendation that the ICC would foot the bill for making the technology available.  That issue is, perhaps, a topic for further exploration in a later post.

The fact remains though that we, as cricket fans, are likely to be in the same position as we were last year when it comes to the usage or otherwise of DRS technology despite the ICC CEC’s recommendation. 

That being the case, I have had pause to consider how the technology is actually used.  It seems to me that now is a time, whilst the use of the technology can only be considered to be experimental (given it’s semi regular use), to, on the one hand to ponder whether we ought be using the technology at all and, on the other hand, whether the technology could be used in a better fashion.

A regular theme of my writing on this blog has been the question of respecting match officials. The advent of the technology that lead to the introduction of DRS has been the catalyst for cricket officials being under more scrutiny than they ever have before.  Pre-DRS for every wicket there was 10 minutes of analysis of whether the umpire had gotten the decision correct.  This fact of itself it must be said has seen a diminution of the maxim “the umpire is always right” to the point that, on the question of no balls for example, we are increasingly seeing the umpires themselves questioning their own decisions. 

When I started writing this piece, my central premise was that if we could not have DRS everywhere because of financial constraints then the ICC board should decide to ban its use.  However on reflection and as my ideas have formed on the page I think that premise and argument is mistaken.  Removing the technology on a blanket basis will not stop the scrutiny on umpires nor the questioning of their decisions.  Indeed, if the present series in Sri Lanka is anything to go by, the questioning of umpires and their decisions will only increase in a non-DRS environment. That being the case, I am of the view that DRS should be used where it is available.

The question remains then as to how DRS ought be used.  The current system, being that the captain of each team can challenge the decisions of the umpires, is the epitome of failing to respect the decision of the umpire.  Simply put, I do not like it and I do not think it is good for the game.  The use of the technology ought not be at the election of the captains of either side. 

An option oft suggested is that DRS should be engaged in a review of each decision made on the field.  I do not agree with this for two reasons:

  1. A review of every decision will already make a day of cricket longer than it needs to be.  The long form of the game is facing challenges from many angles internal and external for viewership and extending play even longer will not make the game more popular.
  2. It is a very short step from a review of every decision to there not being umpires on the field at all. 

It strikes me that the best system has to be one that rests the control of the use of DRS technology in the hands of the umpires themselves.  Much like the system used for the Television Match Official in rugby league and rugby union, in the system for using DRS that I envisage the first port of call for any decision would be with the umpire however if the umpire is not sure then he can call for assistance.  In my DRS utopia, the umpire would have three decisions available to him:

  1. Give the batsman out;
  2. Give the batsman not out; and
  3. Refer the decision to the TMO.

I consider that having the umpire make the decision and then refer it only leads to more confusion and questioning of umpires particularly if the umpire’s decision on review is reversed.  If the umpire’s decision to refer forms one of the three decisions that can be made then the prospect of an umpire being overruled fades away.  If a referral is made it would then be solely the province of the TMO going on all the evidence he has available to him to make the decision.  

For example, it is a breezy day at the Gabba for day one of the 2014 Ashes: there is a packed house as fans are desperate to see whether England can compete with Australia having been beaten 5-0 in the 2013 series.  The first ball is bowled to Alistair Cook by Pat Cummins and whilst the umpire hears no noise the ball deviates after it passes the bat and a raucous appeal follows.  The umpire’s immediate thought would be (and for anyone wondering I have been an umpire at sub-district and school level) that there is doubt because he did not hear a sound.  If the umpire has the ability to refer the decision to the TMO he does it immediately WITHOUT making a decision because that doubt means he can not be certain Cooke hit it.   The TMO then makes the decision.

This is the system that the cricket authorities should be trialing whilst DRS technology is not available in every test playing country.  It is more equitable to all concerned and does not lead to captains of cricket teams being openly in conflict with the umpires who are supposed to govern how a game is run once the players enter the arena. 

All things being considered then it is my view that there is now an opportunity for the authorities to change the way DRS is used to make it both more effective and more respectful to those officiating the matches.  I have no doubt that they will not try using the system this way but one can only continue to hope that one day the interests of all stakeholders (including the umpires whose interests are so regularly kept out of the debate) will be considered in the great DRS debate.