Concerns with the New Laws

[missingleg]

Hi all. Is anyone else concerned that these new stricter laws will result in a great deal more headaches & spats between players & umpires during the match. I hope not.

I'm particularly concerned about how umpires will treat the new law in 17.3. Bowlers who bowl the ball into the ground deliberately as a practice/loosening up should be suspended for 30 mins of playing time (or 1 hour, whichever sooner). Of course it's sensible to have quiet words but I'm sure this will be an on-going issue throughout the matches and the season. Bowlers won't know the Law change (even if brought up in the pre-match chat with the captains) & have been doing it for years so it might be habit. I wonder how many umpires will be involved in exchanges when they see this, how lenient they'll be & if they raise it at all. What stance will you take? I'm sure most bowlers on both teams will do this.

The other worry is that the batting team now only gets 1 warning for running down the pitch before penalties are issued. Again, this will result in problems because penalties, which really should be a last resort, are now more likely.

I am pleased that ground, weather & light have now been simplified but I wonder how many umpires will be more keen to continue play in the rain/poorish light when it's not ideal but not dangerous or unreasonable.

The new Laws on boundary catches and run outs I am less worried about as these would almost always be a 3rd umpire job, though they're still important to recognise.

Any thoughts on the implementation of these changes & player-management/fieldcraft/tolerance?

[fedump]

My understanding of this change to Law 17 is different, and is as follows:

If a bowler “warms up” using arm action only, this is not to be regarded as bowling practice, and, by inference, comes within the description of “other practice” for the purposes of Law 17. However, if while doing so, he deliberately bowls the ball into the ground, he is deemed to be taking an action which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, and is unfair under Law 42.3.

From that, it follows that if the umpires agree that the deterioration in the condition of the ball is greater than is consistent with the use it has received, they shall consider there has been a contravention of the Law. The ball will be changed, and the bowler’s end umpire will then implement the additional sanctions set out in Law 42.3 (d). Any further contravention in the same innings will result in the imposition of the additional sanctions set out in the Law.

This begs the question -what in this context, is “deterioration.....greater than is consistent with the use it has received”? Obviously, the condition of any ball changes as the match progresses and, in this situation, it’s not as clear as the seam or the quarter being lifted. Arguably, there might be some certainly before the first delivery with a new ball, but what about a 48 over-old ball that’s been hit for 280+ on a hard ground?

So, on the face of it, if there is no perceptible change in the condition of the ball and the practice was otherwise lawful, there is no action to be taken. If there is a perceptible change, or, if we simply take the view that the very action of deliberately bowling the ball into the ground will cause the ball to deteriorate in contravention of the law, then it’s a change of ball, a five run penalty and so on. A repetition would, of course, lead to the suspension of the bowler who bowled the preceding delivery.

This was the subject of considerable discussion at a County ACO seminar which I attended last weekend, and I suspect that there may have been a call to Lords as a result. It will be interesting to see whether there will now be a flurry of late amendments to playing conditions!

[lofters]

Here in Cheshire, we are at the moment rushing through a late amendment to our Playing Conditions that will mean in Law 17, the appropriate bit of it.....

(b) Between the call of Play and the call of Time

(i) no one may participate in practice of any kind on the field of play, even from outside the boundary, except the fielders as defined in Appendix D and the batsmen at the wicket. Any player involved in practice contravening this Law shall be considered to have himself contravened the Law and will be subject to the penalty in 4 below.

(ii) there shall be no bowling or batting practice on the outfield.

Bowling a ball, using arm action only, to a player in the outfield is not to be regarded as bowling practice but shall be subject to (b) (iii) and (c) below. However, a bowler deliberately bowling a ball thus on to the ground will contravene Law 42.3 (The match ball – changing its condition).

....we will ignore/delete the last full sentence, thereby going back to where we all have been in years past.

Some in our area have opined that as upwards of half the games on Saturday [3rds/4ths/5ths etc] are not Panel umpired, enforcement [which could easily be sporadic at best] of the ECBs amendment might cause unrest we can all do without.

In addition, I understand that the Minor County Cricket Association have already issued instruction to proceed this way.