fielder absent

[jaybee]

See Law 5(c)(ii): "If, in the case of a follow-on or forfeiture, a side fields for two consecutive innings, this restriction shall, subject to (i) above, continue as necessary into the second innings, but shall not otherwise be carried over into a new innings."

He didn't come on at the recommencement (12:40) so he has been off the field for 30 minutes at the end of the 1st innings plus 10 minutes at the start of the 2nd. He can't bowl until he's been on the field 40 minutes i.e. 13:30.
This only applies to a follow-on and on the same day.

[sillypoint]

Two comments on this discussion:
1. Re mrsinghIndia's comment "The difficulty, as pointed out, is the way our revered text books on the Laws - Tom Smith & the OLM … are interpreting and teaching this aspect of the Law.": I think the comments to the effect that the teachings in these are contrary to the Law can only be based on misunderstanding; they both seem clear enough to me.
2. Re the above example: Law 15.1 makes perfectly clear that an interval between innings is a scheduled break. The forgoing discussion applies only to unscheduled breaks.

[viswajith]

the doubt regarding the 2nd situation was whether both delays add together or will you consider the second delay (10 mts) as another break which was less than 15 mts?i hope its clear to anybody now....

[sillypoint]

This whole discussion has been about unscheduled breaks. It is clear in Law 15.1 that intervals between innings are SCHEDULED intervals.

[mrsinghIndia]

sillypoint:
In my posts, I have quoted Tom Smith & the OLM on the one hand and MCC on the other.
I see that they state something radically different.
Tom Smith & the OLM say that, for the benefit of adjusting the duration of the unscheduled break to be given, the unscheduled break MUST fall within the absence of the fielder. That is, he is absent when this break starts. Thus, only B should get the advantage.
This is what I was taught.
On the other hand, the MCC now says on its website there is no such condition. According to the MCC, the advantage will be given to both A & B, in our example.
*
Here is a quote from the OLM...
If an interruption forms part of the time the fielder was absent, then the time taken for the interruption not only does not count towards the time of his absence, it can count as time he was actually on the field, if he returns to the field as soon as the interruption is over . If he remains absent when the interruption is over , this concession does not apply .
& Tom Smith says, 'In the situation when the player has left the field and while he is off, an unscheduled break occurs any penalty time he has accumulated is affected by the action he takes when play resumes. there are two possible scenarios:...'
Here is what the MCC has to say in answer to the specific question which has been the subject of this discussion:
2-C Interruption before fielder’s ‘penance time’ completed
A player has been absent from the field for 35 minutes. He has been back on the field for 10 minutes when there is an interruption for rain. If he returns with the rest of the team at the end of the interruption, can he count the time taken for the interruption as part of his waiting time, or
does Law 2.5(c)(iii) apply only to players who are off the field when the interruption begins?
*
To count the time of an interruption as time on the field of play – i.e. to be able to offset this time against waiting time – Law 2.5(c)(iii) lays down only two conditions.
1. The break in play must be an unscheduled interruption, not an arranged interval.
2. The player must return to the field on the resumption of play at the end of the interruption.
Whenever these two conditions are satisfied, this section of Law will apply. In the example quoted, the player still has 25 minutes to wait when the interruption starts. If it lasts for 15 minutes, he will have 10 more minutes to wait on resumption of play.
The Law in this regard have remained unaltered from 2000 to 2012, but, I think, somewhere down the line, interpretations have changed.