|
Post by heavybails on Feb 2, 2010 0:23:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Feb 2, 2010 2:15:56 GMT
You're quite right they didn't.
However, they were perfectly correct not to. Following the incident at the Oval, the ICC changed all of their playing regulations, so that in the case of ball tampering now Law 42.3 has been amended and the 5 penalty runs are never awarded.
Incidentally the umpires did make a mistake though. Under the ICC regulations the batsmen at the wicket should have chosen the replacement ball, not the umpires.
|
|
|
Post by heavybails on Feb 2, 2010 9:27:32 GMT
thanks wisden , is that a law change to all cricket or just to icc matches ?
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Feb 2, 2010 11:31:01 GMT
Not a law change, just a special regulation that the ICC have (one of many) for their matches. Another one you see quite often, which can cause confusion, is a ball passing over head-height as a bouncer. Under the laws it's a No-Ball, however under the ICC regulations for their matches it is a Wide Ball.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Feb 2, 2010 20:20:02 GMT
It really ought to be a wide - remember "Spedigue’s Droppers"?
I do not know why they changed it.
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on May 3, 2010 12:53:14 GMT
I couldn't agree more on the issue of ICC changing the high bouncing ball to a Wide instead of a No Ball. In my view the Law was changed in 2000 for a very good reason: the definition of a Wide was changed; now instead of the ball having to be simply out of the batsman's reach, it need only be not "sufficiently within his reach for him to be unable to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke". As there is no "normal cricket stroke" that is played above the head the ICC definition makes no sense.
Worse still, because they have made this change it filters down to other competitions (including the one I umpire in). On a couple of occasions I have seen a batsman dismissed because of this variation; had Law 42.6 stood the batsman would be safe from dismissal, yet free to try and score from it, because the delivery would be a No Ball; as varied the delivery, which would be a No Ball under 42.6, cannot be called Wide because he has made contact with it. Dumb!
More generally, I have never been able to understand why the ICC is allowed to get away with varying so many of the Laws. Surely cricket at international level should be played under the Laws as written, and ICC competition rules should only cover issues local to that level and competitions (lights, technology, third and fourth umpires, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Jun 21, 2010 0:24:15 GMT
I assume that the you tube link is Afridi confusing the ball with an apple? If so my colleagues and I when addressed shortly after the incident were told that the umpires were incorrect not to award the 5 penalty runs. A look at the ICC regulations confirms this. The only changes to Law 42.3 appear to be 1) that on the second offence the bowler who bowled the preceding delivery will not have to be replaced. 2) That it is reported to the match referee who is to take action against the player(s) involved, or if unidentified to take action against the captain and 3)if the balls needs to be replaced, the batsmen at the wicket will choose the replacement from a selection of 6 balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) as correctly stated in an earlier post. If I am incorrect about the 5 penalty runs I would be grateful if someone could point me in the general direction of the playing conditions that relate to it.
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Jun 21, 2010 3:28:40 GMT
Hi Reggie,
Yes I think you're right about this having been a clip of the Afridi incident.
You're also quite correct about the procedure that should have been adopted.
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Jun 21, 2010 6:03:46 GMT
Thanks for that Wisden.
|
|