It’s that time of the year when the ICC messes about with the laws of cricket. I’ll be going through the changes and what I think of each of them. If you want to read about what more relevant cricket figures think, check out this cricinfo article.

An outline of the changes:

• Must use power plays between overs 16 and 40
• New balls at each end
• ‘Obstructing the field’ law change
• No Runners

Let’s go through them.

Power plays between 16 and 40 overs

This simply reduces the role of the fielding captain and senior batsman in shaping the game. While I wasn’t originally a fan of allowing power plays to be taken at any time (thinking it was a cheap ploy at making the game exciting), this law change is made to force the power plays to be taken later by the bowling team and earlier for the batting team.

This may make it slightly more difficult for the fielding team an ideal time to bring your spinners on is around the 16th over (otherwise it can be too late to bring a spinner on for a full 10 overs). We may even see a fielding captain bowl a spinner between the 11th and 16th overs to take advantage of the period where he cannot have a power play.

How this affects the batting team is a little more interesting. The batting team would quite often just take the power play at the 45 over mark (which is when they couldn’t delay taking it any longer). This is generally a stupid strategy. A batting team should usually take the power play at the 4o over mark (which is what they will now be forced to do).

The reason for taking it at the 40th over mark is that you get the benefit of a restricted field between overs 40-45 and then you get the benefit of an end of innings bash between overs 46-50. This would force a captain to stretch his best bowlers between 2 blocks of 5 overs rather than being able to consolidate them into 1 period.

Overall, a power play forces the fielding captain to do what he should be doing anyway. Namely, bringing the field in, cutting off the easy single and placing fielders in attacking positions. This is the best strategy for a captain and it’s no coincidence that a power play is usually followed by a tumble of wickets.

New balls at each end

This was tried in the Australian domestic competition around 10 years back. From memory I believe they used pink balls and had one at each for one-dayers like this new law suggests. It was scrapped. You have to wonder whether the ICC consulted the Australians as to why they scrapped it in the first place.

This effectively means it will take twice as many overs for the new ball to get old. The oldest a ball will be in a match is 25 overs. Batsmen should get value for their shots but pace bowlers, who generally rely on the new ball will also be advantaged. I feel for genuine spin bowlers (not part timers) who can turn the old ball quite a long way with the old ball, they now lose that opportunity.

This law was to get rid of the mandatory ball change at 34 overs and to stop the ball from getting too discoloured. It should achieve that purpose but the cost might not be worth paying.

‘Obstructing the field’ law change

Players can now be given out for deliberately running between the stumps and the fielder with the ball.

This is rubbish.

Batsmen have always been allowed to do such a thing, it was considered acceptable practice (it was even thought of as good running technique). Nobody complained about it except in very rare circumstances. The punishment one would get for preserving his wicket in this way was an occasional ball in the back (been there, it’s quite painful).

This law will see a lot more fielders throwing the ball into the batsman’s backs and appealing in the off chance that the umpire might agree with them that it was obstruction. There is still a massive gray area for every dismissal and is sure to bring about a controversy sooner or later.

No Runners

I don’t mind this law change. Having said that, this is bound to cause controversy.

A lot of times batsmen were requesting runners on the basis that they had cramp. This was really stretching the spirit of the laws allowing runners as they were meant for batsmen that were incapacitated. Runners were used as a substitution for proper fitness work before a match.

Sooner or later we will have a situation where a batsman is genuinely injured, not able to run and will have to effectively give up his wicket. This is especially true of a one day game where staying in provides no benefit by itself. The first team this happens to will be outraged (despite knowing about the rule beforehand). It it happens to India in a crucial situation, the rule will very likely be changed back (as India have significant influence on the ICC).

I like the spirit with which this law was intended but do not think it is fair. There must surely be another way to prevent runners for batsmen who are simply tired and allow them for those genuinely injured.

If a fielder is injured, he is allowed to be subbed. If a bowler is injured, another bowler can finish his over off. However we now have a situation where a batsman chasing a total in a one day game may be forced to retire and not come back out if he cannot run.

Final Thoughts

Over all a thumbs down for these rules. The ’2 balls’ and ‘no runner’ rules may have some merit but the ‘obstructing field’ and ‘power play’ rules have no real merit to them.

Regards

-Simon