Cricinfo Home |
|
|    Audio   |   Video   |   
Search
 

India v England, 3rd ODI, Kanpur

Former players call for rule change

Cricinfo staff

November 20, 2008

Top Curve
Bad-light rule
  • In a similar scenario, England benefited last June in a Natwest Series ODI against New Zealand. The match was six balls away from a result when heavy rain forced the umpires to stop play, leaving New Zealand at 127 for 2 in 19 overs, chasing 160 in 23. New Zealand were an over away from a D/L result in their favour. Subsequently, ICC rules were amended to allow reducing the innings break to a minimum of 10 minutes to try and ensure a result in case over 60 minutes of play was lost.
  • The ICC regulation 15.1 was amended to read: "Where the innings of the side batting first is delayed or interrupted, the umpires will reduce the length of the interval. In the event of time being lost (playing time lost less any extra time provided) up to and including 60 minutes in aggregate, the length of the interval shall be reduced from 45 to 30 minutes. In the event of more than 60 minutes being lost in aggregate, the duration of the interval shall be agreed mutually by the umpires and both captains subject to no interval being of more than 30 minutes' duration or less than 10 minutes' duration. In the event of disagreement, the length of the interval shall be determined by the ICC match referee."
Bottom Curve

The abrupt end to the third ODI between India and England in Kanpur due to fading light has sparked off a debate over the rules and their application. While players involved on Thursday called it "bizarre" and "disappointing", former cricketers pulled no punches, calling for the ICC to step in and ensure that lights at grounds are used to prevent "an absolute farce".

Graham Thorpe, the former England batsman, suggested the match referee (Roshan Mahanama, in this case) should take a firmer call and "act almost as the chief executive of the game."

The match began 45 minutes late, due to fog, and was reduced to 49 overs-a-side affair though the lunch break was not curtailed. With conditions deteriorating at the Green Park Stadium, the umpires, Russell Tiffin and Amiesh Saheba, offered India the light. It was immediately accepted and the D/L method was applied to declare India, batting at 198 for 5 in 40 overs, the winners by 16 runs. England had scored 240 in 48.4 overs.

After the match, the captains, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Kevin Pietersen, said they knew the D/L method would come into play when fog delayed the start. Pietersen said he had requested the match officials to reduce the lunch interval but was told the ICC rules don't allow that.

Andrew Flintoff, the England allrounder, said it was "a bizarre scenario" in the end because he felt England were two wickets away from "pulling something off". "As you can imagine in the dressing room, the lads are down," Flintoff said. "If we had got two quick wickets, we would have been right back in and could have pulled something off. It wasn't to be. As you can imagine, we are a bit disappointed."

Pietersen said the team has tried to get it sorted. "[We] tried to chat with the umpires and stuff but, according to ICC ruling, the break has to be half an hour. It cannot be less than half an hour. We wanted to change the half-hour break. At the 9.15am toss, we wanted to start as early as possible because we knew we are not getting a full game in."

However, an ICC spokesperson said the rules did not apply here as only 45 minutes of play were lost - a minimum of 60 minutes have to be lost for the break to be reduced.

The stadium lights - they are not cricket-specific floodlights - were switched on only after the match was called off to facilitate the presentation ceremony. The playing conditions for the series, endorsed by both captains before it began, is believed to include a decision to not use lights in day matches.

Ravi Shastri, the former India captain, and David Lloyd, the former England coach - both present at the game as commentators - said the decision to use lights should be taken away from the rival captains.

Javagal Srinath, who was debating the issue with Shastri, Thorpe and Lloyd on NEO Cricket, the official broadcaster, said it was up to the home board (the BCCI, in this case) to offer the option of lights before the series and certify they are fit and available.

"ICC should step in and decide," Shastri said. "Why should the two captains meet [on this issue]? They [ICC] should put it in their constitution once and for all that whether you are playing in Australia or Zimbabwe or in England or in India, if the ground has lights, use it, for Christ's sake. Otherwise, it's an absolute farce. Thirty thousand people watching the contest, and you don't have play for 45 minutes because there is fog, which is ridiculous. Take it away from the players and it will make a huge difference."

Lloyd said it was clear the match should have started earlier than it did. "They could have started 40 minutes earlier," Lloyd said. "Take the lights completely away from the captains, and make it a regulation. If and when you have to use the lights, put them on, even if it is a day game, to ensure that there is a decent game of cricket."

But Srinath, who is a member of ICC's panel of match referees, said the suggestion that the lunch interval be reduced to accommodate more overs was not feasible as they players needed time to recuperate. "If you have play close to 50 overs [in the first innings], a break of 30 minutes is mandatory because players have to go back to the dressing room and recuperate," he said. "The 30 minutes to reorganise themselves is a must. In case, if the game is curtailed further, to 20-25 overs, both captains are involved along with the match referee to decide whether a minimum of 10 minutes needs to be cut from the break."

 Read Comments (34)

 
Post this story on your favourite website Email this page to a friend Print this page Feedback

Comments

Top ^
Comments have now been closed for this article


Neither the commentators, ex cricketers nor the readers in their comments have raised the issue - why do you need 30 mts lead time after toss to start play? While making rules certain basic principles and objectives should be kept in mind (basic framework) 1. As new situations crop up, rules need to be amended. 2. The no. of overs played should be reduced as a last resort 3. Reduce the toss-to-start and break-time-between-the-innings first, before reducing the no. of overs. (Learn from Formula 1.) 4. Let two ICC members from neutral countries be present at the venue. They should be empowered to interpret the rules according to the context along with the Match Referee. This would (hopefully) avoid mindless application of (rain/light) rules as it happened in two World Cups. Finally, Dhoni said at the toss that he was aware of D/L rules likely to come into play. England which benefitted in the World Cup against South Africa in 1992 and against NZ should know rules cut both ways.
Posted by CricketisMyPassion on November 23 2008, 14:13 PM GMT


Doesn't England whine all the time?? Way back in 2001 in SriLanka they received a few bad decisions.Ian Botham was crying "foul" like a 8 year old schoolboy .In the next test All umpiring decisions went in favor of England. They never made a comment about it, especially Botham.Englands cricket public are such good losers unlike their indian or pakistani counterparts, but the same can't be said about the players and commentators. Nevertheless India who are hoping to become the cricketing "Super power" should at least be able to stage matches without being interupted by light. This is 2008 for god's sake not 1970's...
Posted by dsachit on November 22 2008, 03:16 AM GMT


D/L or a nice hammering, England lost. End of the story. It isn't as if both teams didn't know the rules that would govern the series. It isn't as if both didn't agree to play by the same set of rules. What's the whining and moaning all about? Dhoni is definitely clever, and if people care to remember, he was the one captain that got his team to practise for a bowl out in the T20 championships, just covering for that eventuality. He knew exactly who would bowl in the bowlout and in what order. Sure enough, when the tie came against Pakistan, India hit all three and Pakis not even one. Now, that is what being a professional is all about and if you aren't one, atleast learn to be a good loser.
Posted by sweetspot on November 21 2008, 09:27 AM GMT


Before 2011 world cup these blokes will definitely be amongst the probables: Core Group: 1. Sachin Tendulkar (No Sachin, No India, record obliterator) 2. MS Dhoni (Super-Captain & awesome wk bat) 3. Virender Sehwag (Opening Butcher) 4. Gautam Gambhir (Classy opening Butcher) 5. Yuvraj Singh (666666, Danger Man) 6. Zaheer Khan (Top Striker) 7. Harbhajan Singh (Top Spinner) Batting applicants: 8. S Badrinath 9. Suresh Raina 10. Rohit Sharma 11. Virat Kohli 12. M Vijay Potential Allrounders: 13. Irfan Pathan 14. Piyush Chawla 15. Yusuf Pathan 16. Praveen Kumar Fast Bowling applicants: 17. Ishant Sharma 18. Sreesanth 19. RP Singh 20. Munaf Patel Spin applicants: 21. Pragyan Ojha 22. Amit Mishra 23. Murali Kartik Spare Keepers: 24. Dinesh Karthik 25. Parthiv Patel That leaves 5 more places to make 30:Who? 26. C. Pujara 27. Ashok Dinda 28. Manpreet Gony 29. VRV Singh 30. VY Mahesh 31. SK Trivedi 32. Joginder Sharma 33. P Sangwan
Posted by Shallin on November 21 2008, 08:46 AM GMT


One of the problems with all forms of cricket reporting is that its based on which team benefits or loses. Had the roles of India and England been reversed, the headlines would be screaming how India had been cheated out of a victory. The question we need to ask is why do the teams have a say in deciding what light is good enough to play in? Dhoni would not have accepted the light had India been behind the D/L run-rate no matter if the players couln't see their bootlaces. Conversely, the batsmen get to traipse off because they were ahead of the D/L rate. That said, England have a long way to go to challenge India in this series. I've blogged on outsideedge.wordpress.com about what England need to do: 1. Let Freddie loose 2. Remember that they have two feet while playing spin 3. Don't order baked beans
Posted by donthaveaclue on November 21 2008, 06:00 AM GMT


I think BCCI should learn a lesson from this episode, same thing is bound to happen in Guwahati. light faded at 4:30 in Kanpur. there it will fade on 3:30 itself. these venues should not be allotted matches in this season or use of floodlights should be allowed. Guwahati has also got lights but no one is using it. these venues should be allotted ODIs in March-April
Posted by 24-4 on November 21 2008, 05:50 AM GMT


The point is: modern cricketers are reluctant to accept defeat gracefully. Most of them, anyway: SL are the exception to the rule. The one mistake was to knock just one over off each innings: at least 4-5 was advisable keeping new-age over rates in mind. What disappoints most is how the losing side in a curtailed match gets an opportunity to whinge for all they are worth and discredit the winning team's performance. England had their chances but at the point of time when play was called off, India were far more likely to win than England and a margin of 16 runs isn't exactly flattering for India fans; if anything it makes England believe they came closer than they actually did.
Posted by masterblaster666 on November 21 2008, 05:20 AM GMT


no-one is disputing the result. England were disappointed they didn't win, they should be, and were hoping for more overs, fair enough but they have only themselves to blame for not playing to the DL. Dhoni is continuing to show why he is one of the best captains in the world, DL is a system, and as such can be played to, and he did so brilliantly. DL only disadvantages the team that doesn't understand it. The outcry is about the curtailment of a match without any effort by the ICC to encourage a full match. If captains are responsible for getting in the right amount of overs, then the ICC should be responsible for providing the right amount of time for both teams to play the same overs, if necessary reducing lunch or number of overs
Posted by frednork on November 21 2008, 04:34 AM GMT


My concern is that if match is delayed by 45 min , why not overs should be reduced to 45 per side each , so that you can save half an hour to get the result of the match
Posted by manish_batra on November 21 2008, 03:55 AM GMT


Why doesn't the match referee haul Pietersen and Flintoff for whining and cribbing 24/7. Didn't they know playing conditions well in advance. What sort of preperations do these blokes go to a match with. However, I would reserve most blame for a shambolic BCCI - scheduling 7 ODIs all across India. This is the type of moronic planning only BCCI and its politicians are capable of. And we have a champions league to contend with. Its time Lalit Modi went to Bollywood. He has no business running cricket.
Posted by Farce-Follower on November 21 2008, 03:17 AM GMT

Read all 34 Comments 
Top ^
The Cricinfo Quiz - Australia v South Africa special edition
Test your knowledge
    Fantasy cricket: Australia v South Africa & New Zealand v Windies
Login/enter your teams now
    Live scores, news & ball-by-ball commentary on your phone
Cricinfo Mobile
Related Links Latest News Latest Features

Cricinfo Products
The Quiz - Australia v South Africa edition
Take the challenge now
Video: SportsCenter news round-up
Watch on cricinfo.tv
Current fantasy: Aus v S Africa & NZ v Windies
Enter/login now
Live text commentary & news on your phone
Cricinfo's mobile services
 
Sponsored Links
Exclusive Punk Cricket T-Shirts - from £14.99
Order now at Cricshop
Bet LIVE on Australia v South Africa, 3rd Test
Fixed odds at bet365
Premiership & Celtic League rugby coverage
On Scrum.com
2009 Premier League & UCL football coverage
On ESPNsoccernet.com
 
 
Top 5 player searches
Most read stories