Bad light

[Paoli]

Bad light. Always a contentious issue, isn't it?

I for one have always wondered why it should be left to the batsmen? Take a look at England vs. South Africa. Surely, with sixteen overs to go and South Africa being 8 down, England were going to win. But the umpires called their bluff shortly after the new ball, and Ntini and deVilliers walked off.

What about if the batting team is 20 runs away from victory, they wouldn't go off. I think the decision of light should either be made by mutual consent of the captains, or the umpires. Obviously TV has a lot to do with it; Channel 9 won't hang around until 6:01 to see the last ball bowled, they go straight to the news.

I reckon the ninety overs should ALWAYS be bowled, unless of course rain intervenes. But, again, the powerful force that dictates cricket, the remote control, won't allow it.

[Occasional Fan]

I suppose the logic of offering the light to the batsmen becomes clearer if you're the guy standing there in the dark with a hard ball whistling around your ears. However, in the England tour of South Africa there was at least one occasion where the fielding side claimed inability to pick the ball up leading to an immediate close of play and a drawn match when England were prepared to bat on. That arose from the regulations regarding artificial light - which basically allow for the light to augment but not to replace natural light. Graeme Smith either argued or did not contest the umpires' view that, if you can see shadows on the grass from the floodlights, then artificial light is more significant than the natural light and therefore the game should be interrupted. I'm not enough of a physicist to say whether that argument is good or bad, but it has some appeal to the layman. And it seemed to stop at least that game prematurely (I'm not so sure there weren't two games, in fact, which were affected in this way). I'd rather scrub round that part of the rule - put the lights on if the umpires ask for them, condition being as previously that, once on, they must stay on till close of play, and then leave it for the umpires to determine when and whether to offer the light to the batsmen. My instinct says if the square leg umpire and the batsmen can pick the ball up, so can the fielders. Alternatively, scrub round artificial lighting for any game where the ball is red and go back to the good old days which we all understood.

[Freddie=GOD]

The sad thing is...there CANNOT be ANY rule to prevent bad light affecting play. You see it is very difficult for the batsmen to see the red ball under lights,(if there are any on the ground) so the only possible thing to do is to speed up the over rate really.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

Bad light. Always a contentious issue, isn't it?

I for one have always wondered why it should be left to the batsmen? Take a look at England vs. South Africa. Surely, with sixteen overs to go and South Africa being 8 down, England were going to win. But the umpires called their bluff shortly after the new ball, and Ntini and deVilliers walked off.

England have only themselves to blame for missing out on that victory, the players where in the pavilion and the sun was shining bright.
Not the umpires at fault, it was a pre series agreement that at no stage had the match to be played dependent on the floodlights, and that was why they had gone off in the first place.
England should not have been party to such an agreement.

This is the jist of what happened, maybe a little different to be spot on, but near enough.

[Mongoose]

Regarding the last two postings:

Yes, it was England's fault for entering into the agreement. I don't know what either side was thinking, agreeing to a rule like that one.

And yes, the only real action that will be effective is speeding up over rates. As has been suggested earlier in this thread, immediate penalties are the only way in which teams will ever be cajoled into getting their act together. A defeat by 10 runs because of an over-rate penalty will hurt a team/captain far more than a huge fine / ban for a few games. Can you imagine the reaction of the supporters and the media if England lost 2-1 to Australia, with the Aussies winning the final test because of a run penalty. No team would want the shame of it resting on their shoulders. They would pull their finger out and get on with the game much quicker. Hit them where it hurts. Then we'll see more cricket.

Linked to this, every fan deserves to see 90 overs play if the weather permits. Fans should be reimbursed if slow play results in a failure to complete 90 overs. Can you imagine paying for your chips, only to have 10 percent of them taken away? I know it would be really difficult admin-wise, but wouldn't it be great to see a team who have bowled 11 overs per hour dishing out shrapnel to supporters on the way out! I have played a lot of cricket, sometimes six times a week in my teens. Even on hot days when I was knackered I was able to get round in the field quickly enough. There are too many excuses offered by teams and players. 15 overs per hour is a MINIMUM.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I'm happy enough to monitor the [over rate] situation in the forthcoming England series against Bangladesh and Australia if anyone is interested. With the Excel template already set up, it's not difficult. If you want me to do this, just stick a note below (one is enough!) and I'll open an over rates thread when the series commences.

Originally Posted by Lemming

Yeah, that would be pretty interesting if you have the time to do that.

Well, I would be happy enough to do it if the information were made available! For some reason, Cricinfo is not providing details of innings length in minutes on its scorecards for this match. They always used to. I have written to them to ask if it will be possible to re-instate this information: I thought Cricinfo's database, being Wisden supported, was the scorebook of record, so I am surprised to see that this information has gone. Hopefully it will return or, if not, I'll be able to find it on one of the newspaper sites. The Times, I think, carries a summary of Sir Bill Frindall's cards, and if I can get access to that part of their site - not guaranteed as they bar parts of it to people outside the UK who are unwilling to part with cash - I'll use that as a source. As long as I can find the information, I'll live up to my promise.

I see that today 85 overs were bowled in total. Because there was an innings change, the "par" would have been 87 in six hours. I don't know when "time" was called today, nor do I know if there were any interruptions, so I can't even begin a sensible calculation, but if close of play was at 1800 BST, which was the latest permitted time, and there were no interruptions, then the rate was slow to the point of my unacceptability level (which says the paying public should get 90 overs in a full day including the allowed 30 minutes added time, or 87 if there is an innings change outside the scheduled lunch and tea intervals).