|
|
Post by zaump on Mar 7, 2017 9:46:01 GMT
Hi all I note the incoming law changes re bat sizes, runouts and Mankading: www.lords.org/news/2017/march/mcc-announces-new-code-of-laws/What do you think of them? The runout changes seem sensible. I'm doubtful that we'll be using send-offs at my (amateur league) level - we have disciplinary mechanisms to report players post-match and the offences will just be covered in our league regulations. Trying to take action on the field seems likely to lead to more conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Mar 7, 2017 11:02:55 GMT
I'll wait and see the exact wording before passing judgment, but reading the press release everything looks sensible. I've got one more season to break my "Handled the ball" duck...
With regard to sending people off (temporarily or permanently) I don't see that it will be a problem - rugby and football referees manage to send people off at amateur level, so I don't see that cricket umpires would have a problem. Hopefully it'll be a very rare occurrence, but if the circumstances call for it, we should surely enforce the new Laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 8, 2017 8:28:37 GMT
I think the idea of sin bins and sendings off has become necessary as more and more football culture drifts into cricket. They will be rare occasions but it's good to have an on-field deterrent as well as post-match reporting. Conflict is sadly a bigger part of the game now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShortRun! on Mar 8, 2017 14:39:53 GMT
I have real issue with the sending people off. The way umpires have been trained with this sort of thing is to de-escalate the game by getting everyone to 'get on with the game' and if the situation warrants it then deal with the tribunal/panel etc. I challenge a lawyer to come up with a way that they could defend a sporting organisation from being sued for damages by an umpire because the rules dictated that the umpires have to tell someone that has, by definition, threatened or committed violence, that they have to leave. If someone has struck someone else with a bat, I'm sorry but telling them they have to go is asking for an umpire to also be hit over the head, it is only escalating the situation. Or to put it another way. The custodians of the laws have just decided that actions that in my part of the world leads to up to 4 years jail (threat) or 6 (act) is worthy of being removed from that game. If that has to be enacted then in most jurisdictions wouldn't we be duty bound to involve the police because a crime has taken place?
I would have changed the laws to keep the report + tribunal type functions the same, but allowed the tribunal to formally change the result, rather than the Law21 thing of 'The result is final'. That way if theres a threat but play can continue then allow it to be dealt with, because any worse police and emergency services are going to be involved anyway. We also know that, particularly in soccer that referees are facing more and more abuse, sendoff powers have done nothing in the sport and arguably increased it. To the point at the moment here in the UK there is referee strikes and a campaign highlighting the abuse of officials. Cricket should not have looked to that as an answer.
On a cheerier note. I support the bat sizes, the changes to Mankad and the Level 1 and Level 2 sanctions. The whole sendoff thing just seems like a dangerous and tokenistic way of acknowledging there was a shortcoming in the laws and slapping together a fix without considering the issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Mar 8, 2017 23:12:35 GMT
Surely it's incongruous, and unsustainable in the long term, that umpires are empowered to enforce concrete, in-game sanctions for relatively minor misdemeanours such as time-wasting, but have no sanction whatsoever for physical violence other than asking people nicely to "Get on with the game".
"Hitting somebody with a bat" is the scenario which comes up a lot - surely if this ever did happen, then all the umpires are doing is starting the player's life-time ban half a game earlier.
I'm not sure how asking a disciplinary panel to over-turn the result of a game would be helpful - if they determine that a player should have been sent off, but the player's team went on to lose the game anyway, where's the sanction?
|
|
|
|
Post by zaump on Mar 9, 2017 9:56:07 GMT
I guess it's intended to be used to back up man management, since obviously that's meant to prevent these situations from occurring at all. When asking politely isn't working, you can escalate to "look, skipper, if you don't get this under control it's going to escalate to the point where players will be sent off" and then take the action if necessary. As in other laws, it won't always be necessary or appropriate to whip out the maximum penalty immediately.
And because of that, I'm wondering whether this is also intended to feed into a (potential threat of) judgement of refusal to play. After a card, the umpires have effectively ruled that one team is required to play with a reduced number of players. Refusal to comply is therefore refusal to play, and could lawfully lead to the match being forfeited. That gives the umpire a MUCH bigger stick to enforce penalties; it's a heck of a lot more immediate, and concretely backed up by law, than "I'll going to write a nasty report in four hours time."
The question of what constitutes violence is going to be the subject of much debate, I suspect. At what point does a push (Level 2) become a shove (arguably Level 4) become a punch (definitely Level 4)? Are we going to see players diving like in football, claiming to have been grievously injured in order to get the maximum penalty possible? Hopefully not, but I wouldn't be too surprised - it's the sort of metagame nonsense that some teams may try just to put the opponents and umpires under pressure. This is going to need careful handling by each association.
Lastly, just remembered that the temporary ban (yellow card, I guess) will be enforced for a number of overs varying by format. Do we have any indication/speculation of what those are likely to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Mar 9, 2017 10:24:53 GMT
Don't know for certain, but I suspect it will be something along the lines of "10 overs or a quarter of the innings, whichever is less"
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 9, 2017 10:25:41 GMT
10 overs was a suggestion - not sure if this would apply to t20 though.
If I ever saw a fight on the field and I didn't have any in-game penalty, I might be inclined to abandon the match. Thankfully nothing like this has happened in the county in which I stand.
New Zealand trial led this system of cards and it's worth looking at if you ha the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Apr 11, 2017 14:48:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Apr 12, 2017 11:45:45 GMT
The new signals seem rather awkward! Surely they could have come up with something easier for the scorers & players?
I like the bat bounce law. I also like the 9 wickets down at lunch law & the running out the non-striker law. I'm not sure about a 'first and final warning' for beamers in lower league cricket will go down well though, or the deliberate front foot no-ball law.
Will read through them properly later tonight - some very interesting changes to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Apr 13, 2017 19:12:02 GMT
Suspect the deliberate front-foot issue will arise very rarely - same as a deliberate beamer, the umpire presumably has to be pretty sure before invoking it.
Without aving thought through all the implications, I suspect the changes to penalty time for being off the field will add more complexity than is strictly required - from personal experience I never got the impression that the use of substitutes was being abused in club cricket.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaump on Apr 18, 2017 9:57:01 GMT
Most of it seems pretty clear at first reading. I'm not sure why they felt the need for 42.7.1 - feels like rubbing salt in the wound and unnecessarily complicating matters!
|
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Apr 26, 2017 11:25:03 GMT
Along with all new changes, there should have been changes to last hour calculation as on one is using it any more.
|
|
