Bad light

[Mongoose]

With a major series approaching this summer, I'm sure all of you want to see a good contest fought to the end. After the recent controversy in South Africa, isn't it about time that the ICC cleared up the rules regarding bad light, so that we don't a situation where the fans were robbed of a tense finish because some shadows appear on the grass? I'd like to hear what everyone else's ideas are on this issue.

[Occasional Fan]

I don't know the answer to this, so perhaps someone can enlighten me. How many of the test grounds to be used for the Ashes have floodlights? (Lord's, Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Trent Bridge, The Oval).

[Mongoose]

I think all the grounds have access to lighting, whether it's permanent or 'bussed in' for the occasion.

As far as I'm aware, the rule is that, when the lights are on, if shadows are visible on the pitch then the umpires have to offer the light. This allows the ludicrous situation of the umpires being forced to offer the light when they think it is still easily playable. Another problem is that lights are not all the same. Some are more pwerful than others, and grounds are different sizes, so shadows might appear earlier from one ground to the next.

Basically, the whole thing is a mess. The judgement on the light should be left to the umpires, without reference to shadows on the pitch. I think that artificial lighting for test matches isn't needed anyway. It's benefit is dubious, and we'd know where we stand if we left the lights off until the day night ODIs.

[Lemming]

Another important issue which needs to be addressed is the often slow over rate by fielding sides. It has recently being confronted in the shorter version of the game but still has yet to be really 'policed' in tests. Often a fielding side will bowl 12 or 12.5 overs per hour instead of the intended 15, often even with a spinner operating this does not push the rate up to 15. It is very rare to see 90 overs in the six hours alotted playing time. After which the light issues can most often come into play.

Faster over rates will mean more light to play with and no games falling short of sometimes vital overs as in the recent South Africa - England series.

Umpires need more freedom to use common sense in the light situations, it's the ICC's rules that they are following. But heavy penalisation of slow over rate would reduce the number of days requiring light discussions out in the middle.

[Mongoose]

Lemming

I think you raise a really important issue. It is not often that the 90 overs is completed on time. The new ICC rule has also made it more difficult to carry overs into subsequent days (I can't remember the exact rule). All of this means the fans get to see less cricket. At a time when there are more sports than ever competing for attention, cricket needs to give spectators the best possible experience.

I think the idea of punishments for over rates is a good one. You can give out fines and bans, but I reckon it would be more effective to give immediate penalties in runs. These could be added on to the batting team's total as extras. I'm sure we wouldn't see West Indies bowling 11.5 over per hour if it meant another 50 runs to chase! Although seeing some of their bowling recently, another 50 might seem neither here nor there to them.

What is certain is that the game's authorities need to crack down on the time that is wasted by fielding teams. We want to see cricket being played, not guys standing round doing nothing! I'm glad England won that test in Karachi in 2000-1, because Pakistan's antics were a disgrace. At one point it took 25 minutes to complete an over - I was getting bored listening to it on the radio.

If the batsman could still make out the ball in those conditions, then I'm sure the players can cope with a slight dimming of the light at 5.30 in the afternoon.

The main issue with bad light is safety. When it gets slightly dimmer, bring on the spinners and dibbly-dobbly bowlers. Give us a full day's cricket!

[Occasional Fan]

All good points, Lemming and Mongoose. I would skip the idea of artificial lighting for test matches - the idea might have been right, but it led to some dissatisfaction in South Africa, and there certainly are some points which the players made which may be valid - for example, the fact that they use a red ball in tests whereas for day-nighters a white ball was specifically developed.

The slow over rate discussion is one which we have had here a few times before, and I put together some figures for the achievements of both sides in the recent England tour of South Africa. Mongoose: England don't come out of that looking good! All your criticism above is of non-English sides, but England are no angels themselves! Like you, I would like to see some real action being taken by the authorities against slow over rates in tests - again, that's been addressed, though never concluded on, in other discussions here.

This is the last thread which I can find on the subject from the SA tour - link here - and this thread, in which I included some calculations of average time to deliver an over during the series also comes from the SA tour - link here.

I'm happy enough to monitor the 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.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I'm happy enough to monitor the 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.

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

I agree with you that test cricket should not be played under artificial lighting. There needs to be a rule change to really stop people bowling their overs so slow. I'm not a great fan of banning captains for, for example, six games. I can't imagine any captain in the world would be able to shorten Shoaib Akthar's run-up. I think if we somehow had zero-tolerant on-the-spot penalty run fines it would be a matter of months before all international captains get into the habit of speeding things up to 15 an hour.

The recently introduced rule is completely stupid. I seem to remember it means that if the day is not finished 30 minutes after the scheduled close of play then all remaining overs simply disappear into the ether (please correct me if i'm wrong).

This could mean the loss of maybe 10/15 overs in a test match, a difference of 50 or so runs or a couple of wickets. It's the spectators that are losing out!

I remember Geoff Boycott commentating, he made the point that in "his day" there were no drinks break mid-session. I don't know how badly these breaks are needed but they collectively contribute to maybe 4 or 5 overs a day. He also said that even the great WIndies sides of the 80's, operating with 5 quicks constantly, rarely dropped to a low over rate.

If this problem is sorted, rarely will bad light half an hour after scheduled close of play affect the game. Then more common sense rules need to be introduced for general bad light in cloudy weather for example.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Lemming

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

Consider it done. I'll post a note at least at the end of each match, and if anything particularly awful seems to be happening during the match, I may put up a comment or two then.

Originally Posted by Lemming

The recently introduced rule is completely stupid. I seem to remember it means that if the day is not finished 30 minutes after the scheduled close of play then all remaining overs simply disappear into the ether (please correct me if i'm wrong).

You're correct. If the reason for lost overs is simply failure to bowl them quickly enough, the players successfully rob the supporters as the shortfall is not made up on a subsequent day. You only make up lost overs if they are lost through an interruption to play, and then only to a maximum of 30 minutes added at the beginning of each day.

[Mongoose]

What was the reason for this rule change? Wasn't it something to with TV schedules? Because it seems like spectators often end up being short changed when rule changes are brought in without due consideration for the implcations. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing 'Some Mother Do 'Ave 'Em' or 'Steptoe and Son' being put back to the end of August if it means the TV shows test match cricket until 7.00pm. And I'm sure the watching fans at the ground wouldn't mind seeing extra play. I was at Edgbaston in 2002 when we watched 105 overs of England batting: Trescothick 161, Butcher 94, and a bit of Vaughan, Freddie and Thorpe thrown in. I didn't hear anyone complain about the late finish!

[Occasional Fan]

TV it was. Much more money in the game from the TV companies than from the people in the grounds, I guess. This is the same reason football fans have to freeze their nuts off on the terraces at 10pm on a Monday evening in mid-winter rather than enjoying what little sunshine might be available on a Saturday afternoon.