Substitutes and split fielding restrictions approved

[Rachael]

My concern with the substitutes rule is that it introduces a "lottery" element: it makes the toss absolutely critical because in addition to choosing the best conditions you can ensure you get the best use of your extra bod. On the other hand.. if you think batting first is a big advantage then you could select 5 bowlers and an all-rounder to minimise the consequences of losing the toss... and name a frontline batsman like Pietersen as 12th man to enable you to use play a more balanced side over two innings if you are batting first.



The "cautious" approach would be for England to make Flintoff the 12th man. Pick 6 batsman, a keeper and 4 specialist bowlers and then wait for the toss: if you get to bat first then wait and see if you can get away with substituting Flintoff for a batsman.... increasing your bowling options for the second innings... but if wickets go early you can bring Flintoff on for a bowler to increase your chances of posting a decent total.

[Occasional Fan]

Interesting final point raised in the TMS lunch time discussion: how do the flexible fielding restrictions affect the Duckworth-Lewis calculations? Predictably, no-one was able to answer, and Bill Frindall may not have been joking when he said that Frank Duckworth has fled the country. The calculations are already opaque, but presumably they will have to be reworked to allow for par scores to be calculated in all circumstances. At the moment, the inputs to the formula are essentially the number of wickets remaining and the number of overs remaining (I think). Now there will have to be a further input - number of restricted overs remaining - if the formula is to continue to be responsive to the regulations for ODIs. And par scores will presumably be up and down like a fiddler's elbow during the course of an innings depending on when the fielding captain elects to take his restricted overs. So - let's look at a really nasty situation, with a team batting second about to win on D/L if it rains in the next couple of overs. Will it be possible for the fielding captain to move the target enough through manipulation of the restricted overs to put it out of reach before the skies open? It's not impossible to conceive of such a situation, especially in England, for example, where there are often a couple of overs during which everyone can see that rain is imminent but play continues.

[Alison]

Does anyone know what the wording of this new substitutes rule is or is going to be?

[Occasional Fan]

I trawled the ICC site this morning for this, Alison, but without success. Maybe they haven't written the regulations yet! After all, there's more than a month for the players, coaches, officials, commentators and viewers to work out what the heck is going on!

[Mike]

The only description of the substitution rule I can find is this:

The CEC also approved the introduction of soccer-style replacements which will permit sides to replace a player at any stage of a match. The replaced player will be ruled out of the rest of the match while the replacement will be entitled to assume any remaining batting or bowling duties. Both players will receive a cap.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-media...ry/211848.html

Every other cricket site is quoting the same thing.

Presumably the substitute is named before the toss.

My concern about the substitution rule is whether it will favour all-rounders. Very few players are genuine all-rounders and we may see more "bits-and pieces" players enter the game. It would be good to see Chris Read keeping and replaced by a specialist batsman when the team bats. That raises the quality of play rather than the deterioration of play with the proliforation of "bits-and-pieces" players.

I'd like to make a point concerning the extra 10 overs of fielding restrictions a captain must take. If rain reduces a game to 20 overs a side then presumably the fielding restrictions will apply to all 20 overs. Fair enough if both teams play under these conditions but what happens if rain causes one side to use less overs of fielding restrictions than the other side? Surely, the side using more over overs of fielding restrictions is disadvantaged because more runs are likely to be scored with the field in.

[Occasional Fan]

Everything that has been said on the radio today has confirmed that the one substitute will be named before the toss. The quotation and link you have posted, Mike, is the same press statement that I posted at the top of the thread, but I haven't been able to find the regulation yet.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Mike

I'd like to make a point concerning the extra 10 overs of fielding restrictions a captain must take. If rain reduces a game to 20 overs a side then presumably the fielding restrictions will apply to all 20 overs. Fair enough if both teams play under these conditions but what happens if rain prevents either side using all 10 extra overs of fielding restrictions?

Again, I don't think we know this yet. It's easy enough to legislate for a match which is shortened before it starts, but a potential scorers' and captains' nightmare if the match is shortened (or further shortened) after one side has completed its innings. My comments on Duckworth-Lewis at the top of this page apply - but they only raise the question: they don't even begin to offer an answer.

I hope the ICC has drafted the regulations and released them to the Boards, even if they haven't seen fit to publish them yet. If they haven't, I just don't see how anyone can reasonably be expected to implement the new regulations in only a month, and the idea of using them in the NatWest Challenge in eleven days' time is surely a non-starter.

[Mike]

Apparently, software needs to be implemented at the various grounds to indicate on the scoreboard that the captain has selected a block of fielding restrictions. If so, this surely won't be in place before the NatWest Challenge.

[Occasional Fan]

At least they have developed an umpires' signal to indicate that discretionary fielding restrictions are in place - but don't ask me what it is: I only heard it described on the radio, and badly at that. I'm not sure that the inability of a scoreboard to show it will matter all that much: something as simple as a blue lamp or a note on the replay screens would suffice to indicate that the restrictions are applicable at a particular time, and as long as it gets into the score book I'd not worry too much about what appears on the board. I know that scoreboards are much more complex than they once were, but still I suspect that there is a lot of information which could be displayed but isn't at all but the best equipped test grounds.

[Zainub]

My position has not changed on this and will not. 10 months by the way is too long a trial period. I hope some of the players come out and speak against this.