Regular contributor Andy Oliver with his take on the recent law changes:
Why are we here?
For some reason, known only to the cricket gods, I decided to have a look at the just happened changes to the good old Laws (never rules – unless you want to wind up an umpire / stickler) of cricket.
The changes came into force internationally on the 1st October 2017, and seem to bring the worldwide game more into line with the playing conditions associated with International cricket (within reason obviously).
This has been a three year process by the MCC involving no one that I had ever heard of, except for Simon Taufel (ex-Aus umpire) so hopefully there has been an element of sense and improvement in the changes.
Some of the changes have the potential to create a greater impact on the overall game, and some are tweaks to existing laws. I think there are some that will cause a good few arguments on the village green – so advise any umpires / clubs to have a copy of the updated laws with them on the field, or at the least, at the ground! But that assumes the batsmen/bowlers actually know the Laws in the first place…
You will no longer be able to collect your honorary Graham Gooch award and be given out for handling the ball. This mode of dismissal has been removed; however if a batsman were to handle the ball, they can instead be given out for obstructing the field – so don’t go willy-nilly handling your balls without invitation…
So there are now nine modes of dismissal, can you name them (no Googling at the back)? I’ve been out to five of them I think.
Everyone who has played club cricket will know that one batsman who has a ridiculous, massive, too heavy bat which they can only just lift, but when they do make contact the ball disappears (it’s just all too infrequent). Well now the MCC have decided that batsmen have been riding their luck with too many top edges for six.
Now the batsmen must have a bat that fits within a certain size range – however it can still be as heavy as they want, so I don’t know what impact that might have as there will still be heavy bats that impart significant energy onto the ball (equal and opposite reaction and all that). They will just be made with denser willow.
I believe they had a panel that reviewed the impact bat size made on scores etc. How they did this I don’t know given there are many other variables in play at the same time.
I personally think too many dead wickets are to blame, as well as too many fielding restrictions and the whole two balls in play at once (for ODIs). You could also make an argument for the increased protection of batsmen (better pads/helmets etc) as well as fitter batsmen also impacting on higher scores.
Batsmen are still going to hit big sixes, and they are still going to get lucky edges that fly away to the boundary.
This is an interesting one.
This law allows for the placement of a tether between the bails and stumps. I guess this is to try and prevent eye injuries to wicketkeepers (or slip fielders?).
It does not appear to be a mandatory law, just allowing for the provision subject to the relevant Governing Body. I doubt we will see this filtering into general play, but I could foresee it in the professional game county game, but perhaps not in international cricket. Although would it reduce the spectacle of ‘bails flying’?
My guess is that a lawyer somewhere said that the MCC have a liability because the previous law prohibited any tether/3rd component and without this law they would actually be restricting a potentially injury preventing system.
This one has been amended to state that the ball may only bounce once (before it reaches the opposite popping crease) after being bowled.
It’s a simple change that is standard in professional cricket. The update makes a comment about ‘competent recreational cricket’, they have obviously not seen me playing in the seconds – I might need to practice my bowling a bit more if I want to avoid racking up those no balls!
It could cause a few arguments for those who don’t know about the change and have always ‘got away with it’, or it may just bring a couple of umpires I know of into line with the Laws rather than their interpretation of them…
A substitute fielder can now keep wicket if needed. I guess this is a result of the role being seen as a specialist position that could lead to injury if a non-keeper took up the gloves.
While not relevant to village cricket (we struggle to get ten, let alone having a twelfth man who is an expert wicket keeper), I can see this on the international stage for sure (if the ICC playing regulations bring it in).
I don’t know how this affects the batting order, but I assume that whomever was named in the original starting 11 would be expected to bat and if incapable, you only have nine wickets.
Again, it may be a liability thing, (someone who is not a keeper getting injured because the MCC not allowing a specialist substitute) but it would keep the big game spectacle because you are not having to ‘make do’ with a part timer.
One for the TV more than the village green I think.
A running or diving batsman who grounds his bat, but it then bounces up will not be given out. The key is it has to be a diving/forward momentum (i.e. you could still be stumped if you ‘wobble’ forward, but if running in you are fine).
On the flip side, if a batsman has grounded his bat but lifts (and comes out of his crease) it to take ‘evasive action’ he is not out.
This brings to mind Cooks only Test run out. India, 3rd day at Eden Gardens, Kolkata in 2012.
Cook, only just out of his ground, took evasive action to avoid a throw at the stumps by Kohli. The problem was that he had not grounded his bat in the first place before moving. If he had just allowed himself to be hit, he would be fine (as he did not make a deliberate attempt to block the ball), If he had grounded his bat, and then moved – he would have been fine as well.
As it was, it was his only run out dismissal apparently.
There have been a number of changes to Law 41, mostly tweaks but some good/bigger ones. This law deals with fair and unfair play.
Check your betting slips…
This law make it an offense to bowl deliberate front foot no balls (good job Kieron Pollard did it already….). If caught, then you will be suspended from bowling.
I doubt we will ever see this in a live game. What umpire is going to know if a no ball is deliberate or not?
I’ve seen some doosies just from regular village play!!
Batsmen cannot “take a stance where they will inevitably encroach on the protected area.”
I assume this means they cannot bat 4ft out of their crease (the protected area starting 5ft in front of the popping crease). I guess that when a batsman runs down the wicket to a spinner, it’s still ok though as they are going through the motion of taking a shot.
I know what some of our (my village that is) bowlers would do if they saw someone batting that far out!
This is a good one and bound to cause a few arguments.
Ever heard of “Mankading”? Yup, the one that causes all the arguments. The one where Butler was run out for leaving his crease early (correctly, under the previous law 41.15).
There, my cards are on the table.
Well, Law 41.16 explicitly deals with this and I present the full law below;
If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one in the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.
The ball ‘comes into play’ as the bowler begins his run up, so the bowler can remove the bails at any point up to delivering the ball and if the non-striker is out his ground, then he is gone.
Previously the ‘run out’ had to be performed prior to the bowler entering his delivery stride, but it was basically the same, they can just pull out before delivering
In other words, get back into the crease you cheating batsman, or I’ll have ya!
I expect many arguments to ensue over how this is against the spirit of the game, while ignoring the batsman stealing yards being against the ‘spirit’ instead.
This law is the meaty new one (and thus is also the largest explanation). While there were 42 Laws previously, the juggling has made room for a new law to be made, while keeping it at 42.
This Law is a conduct Law, and allows for in-match consequences for poor behaviour. It’s probably also the one that will cause most arguments if attempted on the village green – so I don’t expect to see much of it happening.
There are 4 ‘levels’ of offence and it is the umpires’ discretion as to which level the offence falls into. First the penalties:
Level 1: Warning (first offence) then 5 penalty runs to the opposition for a repeat offence.
Level 2: 5 Penalty runs to the opposition.
Level 3: Offending player is suspended for a number of overs (10 overs in normal cricket, 1/5th of the innings overs in limited overs cricket), depending on the length of the match, plus 5 Penalty runs to the opposition.
Level 4: Offending player is removed from the field for the rest of the match, plus 5 Penalty runs to the opposition.
Level 1 offences:
– Wilfully mistreating any part of the cricket ground, equipment or implements used in the match (Broad kicking a lump out of the Headingley wicket anyone?)
– showing dissent at an umpire’s decision by word or action (most of my team when I’m umpiring)
– using language that, in the circumstances, is obscene, offensive or insulting (me when I’m umpiring)
– making an obscene gesture
– appealing excessively (Shamsi in the CPL final anyone – if you have not seen it look it up)
– advancing towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing any other misconduct, the nature of which is, in the opinion of the umpires, equivalent to a Level 1 offence.
Level 2 offences
Showing serious dissent at an umpire’s decision by word or action
– making inappropriate and deliberate physical contact with another player
– throwing the ball at a player, umpire or another person in an inappropriate and dangerous manner
– using language or gesture to another player, umpire, team official or spectator that, in the circumstances, is obscene or of a serious insulting nature
– or any other misconduct, the nature of which is, in the opinion of the umpires, equivalent to a Level 2 offence.
Level 3 offences
– intimidating an umpire by language or gesture
– threatening to assault a player or any other person except an umpire. See Law 42.5.1.
Level 4 offences
– threatening to assault an umpire
– making inappropriate and deliberate physical contact with an umpire
– physically assaulting a player or any other person
– committing any other act of violence.
No substitutes are allowed, and if the fielder is removed before batting (or a batsman removed) under a level 4 offence, then they are deemed ‘retired – out’. So a double punishment if you are that naughty while fielding in the first innings.
I do look forward to amateur umpires kicking people out of games. I can see that going really well.
So broadly speaking I think the changes to the laws make things more comparable to the professional/international game.
Some changes are logical and won’t cause any arguments, however other ones have the potential to wind up some batsmen/fielders who aren’t up to speed with the changes.
There are plenty of other smaller tweaks and amendments that I’ve not got to so I heartily recommend having a read of the Laws and the accompanying ‘explanation’ booklet – if you want something that is just a confusing self-referential nightmare to read that is. I mean seriously, who needs to offer a second document to actually explain the first one. Just make the first one easier to read.
Follow Andy on Twitter: @oshodisa or add your comments below as he’ll be around from time to time to answer any queries!