Rule changes good for cricket

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

There is only one problem in this, Rachael: the "farcical inadequacy" of the human eye is all that the umpire has.

Very good OF.... actually that's very very good.... because, of course, in this battle there is something else very important.

The chap the fellow with the strange new action is bowling at, yes that chap over there twenty-ish yards away with a lot of body armour and a bat. Yea him.

He's only got farcially inadequate eyes to help him discern whether or not the bowler has just chucked one at him or merely bowled it old style.

I wonder if his farcially inadequate eyes will ever get used to the fact that every single bowler he ever faces at international level now will occasionally try and throw one at his outside edge, or under his forward prod, or at his head - by mistake - maybe.

My it's going to be exciting for the next few months.

I wonder if they'll change the rules back after Muralitharan retires.

No probably not, that'll be far too dangerous, every nation will have a battery of throwing "bowlers."

What a bloody nonsense.

[Zainub]

It turns out Buchanan is not from the whining brigade, which I'm surprised but glad about. We have had the no ball rule change, the 6 balls in an over rule change, the 2 bouncers in an over in tests and 1 one an over in a LOI rule change, the numerous aids to umpires to prevent umpiring errors that lead to batsmen being given out when they are not, all to add to the ever present terminology of the benefit of the doubt going to the batsmen, not forgetting that one fourth of all pitches at least if not more in the world be batsmen friendly by and large, add to that lush green out fields, shorter boundaries ....

And after all that just one - yes just 1- changed rule that gives some leverage to the bowlers and here we have batsmen whining, first Boycott and then Ponting, and who knows who's going to be next. Anyone, who knows persists with the 'Murali/Lee/Shoaib/Kirtley etc chucks' drama is in my dictionary is a blatant ignorant sentimentalist - I'm sorry if this implies to some members of this forum, but I can't seem to find a nicer way of saying this, I really don't. How long? How long will we refuse to see beyond or own noses, beyond our own egos, beyond our idiosyncrasies and beyond our perceptions of what we think is reality to accept what is THE REAL TRUTH: ALL BUT ONE PERCENT OF INTERNATIONAL BOWLERS CHUCK - NO IFS NO BUTS.

The rule was hence necessary other wise all bowlers would have to be banned.

[Occasional Fan]

But, Zainub - I'll try not to be too sentimental here - my point is that the change in the rule actually makes no difference to the way the game is played now. Up till now, umpires have called no-balls based on what they can see. We are now told that they can only see flexion of more than 15 degrees. If that is so, then setting the tolerance at 15 degrees rather than at what the umpire can see amounts to the same thing. It's the same as changing a speed limit of 100 km/h to one of 62 mph.

My problem therefore is not what this change to the rules means today, because, other than through increased timidity of the umpires (which may or may not happen) there can be no immediate effect if the opening assumption about what the naked eye can see is correct. My concern is what this means for tomorrow, because if we get to a situation where some bio-mechanics expert says that you can only be sure that there was a flexion of more than 15 degrees if the actual flexion is 15 beyond that, we really are on a slippery slope. I think this is what Geoffrey Boycott was getting at.

My own position is that if you are making a rule change which has no effect - such as changing the speed limit from 62 mph to 100 km/h or vice versa - you shouldn't bother. All you wind up doing is kicking up a lot of dust and confusing people. In this case, the ICC has risked confusing players (some of whom have already said their piece), coaches (at least one of whom has expressed his confusion on the BBC messageboard), umpires (who, at the top level, will probably hold their peace, and rightly so in my opinion) and fans. And for what? Nothing! I find it all completely senseless.

[Rachael]

Nice one Zainub....but I do think OF has genuinely worthwhile objections.

No-one can be entirely happy about the situation.. and I would actually be all in favour, in principle, of sticking with the old law (and enforcing it) if it {a} the old law was the one on which the game was actually based (clearly not the case as virtually no-one actually managed tp comply with it)... and {b} enforcing it could be shown to be in the long term interests of the game (not at all clear).

There are clearly going to be problems whichever route one takes now... but the biggest argument against chucking (to my mind) was the one that it made the deliveries (whether from a spinner or a seam bowler: applies to Gough as much as Murali) harder to "pick".

The question that matters most to me is simply this: would a rule change lead to a situation in which the technically very classy and/or those "touched by genius" could be more easily distinguished from automatons whose one dimensional brutality is (currently) swamping the game?

If giving the bowlers a license to push the limits of what counts as legitimate... to add greater disguise to their deliveries, to introduce greater variation and to generally make batting harder... leads to a renewed premium on technique and touch (instead of mere timing) then my instinct (hedged, inevitably, with uncertainty) is to say great. If it doesn't... I'm afraid that for me a state of complete and utter uncertainty decends: it will be thinking cap time once again.

[Occasional Fan]

Always knew I wasn't alone, Oliver! Mind you, we're not exactly a crowd on this side of the fence, are we?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

The rule was hence necessary other wise all bowlers would have to be banned.

I take your point Z. But do you think that with this delineation of the rule bowlers will be less inclined or more inclined to attempt to chuck.

What it suggests to me, is that many bowlers will try (even be encouraged) to see if they can get away with a greater margin of throw.

Buchanan has admitted it in his comments "If bowlers can actually increase the variety of the type of deliveries they can bowl, then that's a good thing for the game, because that means batsmen have got to counter that with their own skills."

Well I still counter with: that's not fair. I am a bowler. I have twice damaged my rotator cuff (not by bowling) and I don't, at 43, intend to try to alter my action AGAIN so that I can occasionally join the throng of bowlers with new "wrong-'uns."

Also, as I have written many times on these pages, it is not fair to the batsmen who are standing twenty-ish yards away.
They have a fraction of a second to judge what the bowler is doing with the ball.
For as long as cricket has been played the batsmen have used their visual skill to judge from the wrist (and the fingertips) what the bowlers are doing with the ball... if they now have to focus on an area, often covered by long sleeves and around a foot further away than their usual focal points, things are going to become jolly difficult indeed.

Remember how much money Test cricket loses when matches are played on dodgy wickets? Wow, exciting cricket - Test match, over in six sessions. Fantastic.

The Australians will finally have their wish of shortening Tests to four days only. We'll never get to the third day, let alone the fourth.

The only comfort I can take from this change of rule is at the thought that if a bowler IS called for throwing, he should be banned for life.

The flexibility law has been changed to the "n"th degree, (and by your words:"the rule was hence necessary other wise all bowlers would have to be banned") if the bowler exceeds the enormous margin of 15 degrees he is clearly seeking a massive advantage. He cannot have done that by mistake.

He must know what he is doing.

He must be attempting to cheat.

And that is simply not acceptable. A bowler called for exceeding the new law, must be banned for life.

IT's not going to happen though.
So there, my comfort blanket disappears.

[Occasional Fan]

Thanks, Rachael! I do try, you know!

I can see you trying pretty hard here to reconcile your traditionalist, purist side with your desire to see ever more guile and artistry introduced to the game. Nowt wrong with that!

I'm having a slightly different problem with tradition and modernity here - and the source of the problem is the confusion which the ICC is causing. I can't help wondering if the ICC shouldn't have consulted a bit with the authority which guards the Laws for all those people who play the game below international level. I can't recall having seen a word about this from the MCC, whose Laws are being interpreted (other than an indication somewhere in the distant past that they do not intend to change the Laws). Have I missed it, or has there really been nothing from them?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Nice one Zainub....but I do think OF has genuinely worthwhile objections.

The question that matters most to me is simply this: would a rule change lead to a situation in which the technically very classy and/or those "touched by genius" could be more easily distinguished from automatons whose one dimensional brutality is (currently) swamping the game?

If giving the bowlers a license to push the limits of what counts as legitimate... to add greater disguise to their deliveries, to introduce greater variation and to generally make batting harder... leads to a renewed premium on technique and touch (instead of mere timing) then my instinct (hedged, inevitably, with uncertainty) is to say great. If it doesn't... I'm afraid that for me a state of complete and utter uncertainty decends: it will be thinking cap time once again.

Ha! I suspected it was the brutality aspect of my argument last month (or whenever it was) that began to weaken your convictions.

I'm afraid that, that will be the way of it. In this time of trying to squeeze ever greater revenue from the game, this dragging people of short attention spans throught the turnstyles to watch Twenty20 (with no farsighted attempt to interest them in a longer game) this dragging in of boundary ropes so as many batsmen as possible can smack the ball safely (and excitingly) into the air for a maximum, this move towards power players, is inevitable.

I'd rather see matches played on uncovered pitches and bowlers bowling a yard closer to the batsmen, or whatever it was that the old back foot law encouraged.

At least that first wish would turn English batsmen into class players of spin. But then if they changed those rules back, they wouldn't have to fartars around with the laws now.

Perhaps now that they're bringing visual mathematics into the laws (fifteen degrees) perhaps - no too silly ... perhaps there should be a height limit on batsmen. Yes let's say if a batsman is over five foot ten, he's got to bowl at least fifteen overs in the day.

That should sort out Hayden. Though of course, he could just chuck every other ball.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I take your point Z. But do you think that with this delineation of the rule bowlers will be less inclined or more inclined to attempt to chuck.What it suggests to me, is that many bowlers will try (even be encouraged) to see if they can get away with a greater margin of throw.Buchanan has admitted it in his comments "If bowlers can actually increase the variety of the type of deliveries they can bowl, then that's a good thing for the game, because that means batsmen have got to counter that with their own skills."

From what I have understood any or lets say most deviations on the previous tolerence levels could not be in most cases detected by the naked eye, so a change in these levels was necessary, from what I see, the previous rules were incorrect because they didn't take into account that sometimes because of the momentum and other factors some bowlers will inevitably endup throwing (even look like throwing) but in actual practice they were making no attempts to cheat or take an unfair advantage. What the new law therefore will do IMHO is discourage intentional throwing because bowlers attempting to do so will now know that umpires are technically speaking less unlikely to miss any undue bending of their arms.

Originally Posted by Oliver

Also, as I have written many times on these pages, it is not fair to the batsmen who are standing twenty-ish yards away. They have a fraction of a second to judge what the bowler is doing with the ball. For as long as cricket has been played the batsmen have used their visual skill to judge from the wrist (and the fingertips) what the bowlers are doing with the ball... if they now have to focus on an area, often covered by long sleeves and around a foot further away than their usual focal points, things are going to become jolly difficult indeed. Remember how much money Test cricket loses when matches are played on dodgy wickets? Wow, exciting cricket - Test match, over in six sessions. Fantastic. The Australians will finally have their wish of shortening Tests to four days only. We'll never get to the third day, let alone the fourth.

I will actually look forward to those days when test cricket is REALLY that tough for batsmen - today for every Mumbai and Old Trafford you have 4 St John's Recreation Ground (Antigua) Lords NSK Wanderers Basin Reserve etc etc - why do you think most test matches these day don't go into day 4? Not because they pitches are tough for batting but because they are SO good batsmen are scoring at 4 an over and hence taking less time to bat. Say what you want but you're trying to convince a person who has long time soft spot for bowlers. May be I'm taking a "a sentimentalist" approach here my self but I can't help it. Really can't.

Originally Posted by Oliver

The only comfort I can take from this change of rule is at the thought that if a bowler IS called for throwing, he should be banned for life. The flexibility law has been changed to the "n"th degree, (and by your words:"the rule was hence necessary other wise all bowlers would have to be banned") if the bowler exceeds the enormous margin of 15 degrees he is clearly seeking a massive advantage. He cannot have done that by mistake. He must know what he is doing. He must be attempting to cheat. And that is simply not acceptable. A bowler called for exceeding the new law, must be banned for life. IT's not going to happen though. So there, my comfort blanket disappears.

I agree here though, for me the current law makes it very difficult for anyone deliberate chucker to get away with it - I'd also on any calling by any umpire ban him for life, I have hope (positive ones) that the ICC will act strongly against anyone who is found breaking the new rules. I can still invision though bowlers banned for chucking taking legal action to get their careers and reputaions back on track, which I would say would not be something I'd look forward to , I'd be extremely disapointed and really very very sad if any of the previously alleged chuckers are called for throwing under the new laws (I have always liked to beleive none of them deliberately bent their arms) and I will certainly wish for them to be removed form the game if they were found to be violating the new improved laws without being given any chances to make any claims to defend them selves after, it would be rather as a matter of fact easier for me to have less contempt for them if they openly admit they cheated and tried to take an unfair advatage.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

But, Zainub - I'll try not to be too sentimental here

Thank you, and sorry if I sounded too harsh.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

My concern is what this means for tomorrow, because if we get to a situation where some bio-mechanics expert says that you can only be sure that there was a flexion of more than 15 degrees if the actual flexion is 15 beyond that, we really are on a slippery slope. I think this is what Geoffrey Boycott was getting at.

I do beleive that we can trust the conclusion the experts have come up with, simply because they are EXPERTS and they know better, and I most certainly beleive that technology produced withing the next 15 years will if anything further prove how correct the verdict present bio-mechanics experts have come up with. I will want to add that Boycott's comment I felt were more out of envy than any legitimate concerns of how these rules might affect the future of the game. I really beleive that. He actually accused the Sri Lankan board of "putting pressure on the ICC" and went as far as saying the ICC were allowing "Murali do bowl anything that he wants" I do not think these sentiments reflect anything but ENVY. Sorry. But that's how I see it, Boycott has never been a fan of Murali (has he been a fan of any bowler for that matter? NO!) and he's just irritated because Murali will be able to bowl his doosra again.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

My own position is that if you are making a rule change which has no effect - such as changing the speed limit from 62 mph to 100 km/h or vice versa - you shouldn't bother. All you wind up doing is kicking up a lot of dust and confusing people. In this case, the ICC has risked confusing players (some of whom have already said their piece), coaches (at least one of whom has expressed his confusion on the BBC messageboard), umpires (who, at the top level, will probably hold their peace, and rightly so in my opinion) and fans. And for what? Nothing! I find it all completely senseless.

Shane Warne's concerns of the new rules making things more confusing don't stand much ground in my opinion - 15 is only a numerical value - umpires still have to do the same things they did before - what the 15 dgere rule means is that now umpires will ALWAYS detect illegal bowling actions as opposed to previously when they missed quite a few technicaal chuckers, 99% to be precise. I think umpires will benefit from the rule change, and even the whole research done by the bowling review comittee : they now know that unless we see a clear cut beding of the arm from our own eyes there is no need of reporting or calling any for having an illegal or potentially illegal action.