ICC change ODI regs re: length of interval

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/current/story/355372.html

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I can see that it is usually helpful to have a situation where the captains and umpires can make a decision between them for the good of the game (although isn't that what Cronje and Hussain did at Centurion Park?). On the other, can it be right to make a change to the regulations in the middle of a series?

And on the other other hand, they seem to be missing the point, which is that when the umpires at Edgbaston yesterday made the decision to continue with the match at around the 17-over mark, despite the fact that the rain was falling pretty steadily by then, they really had a public duty to see the match played to a conclusion by letting NZ bat the required 20 overs. If they had called off the match with 3-4 overs to go before the 20-over requirement, I think there would have been some upset, but on the whole, fewer questions raised. The fact that there was just a single over left to be bowled is what led people up and down the country (and on the other side of the world) to scream at their televisions.

If I'd paid for a ticket yesterday I'd be camped outside the ECB offices right now demanding a refund. I'm not always on the spectators' side over their various grumbles, especially when it comes to the ground, weather and light question, but on this occasion, the decision of the umpires, in the context of their earlier decision to continue in bad weather, was simply bizarre.

And let's not even get into Collingwood disingenuously claiming that there was not time to get four extra overs in (the NZ innings had been officially shortened to 23 overs), when as an international captain he knew that it was only one extra over that was needed for an abandonment to be avoided. Or the umpires saying that their decisions should never be influenced by the context of the match. What utter rot - we're not playing in a laboratory.

/soapbox rantorama

So we've had a clarification of the laws from MCC after game 1, and the ICC have changed the regulations after game 2.

What will game 3 bring?

Don't agree with this though Rachel...

Or the umpires saying that their decisions should never be influenced by the context of the match. What utter rot - we're not playing in a laboratory.

England were made to leave the field (at 77/3) in better conditions than the game was continuing in from the 17th over onwards...

Umpires have a duty to ensure that play is fair to both sides. Frankly I don't see how it was fair to England to bowl in those conditions at all.

The umpires were simply officiating to the letter of the ICC regulation for this series IMO

JKL,

I agree that they should not have been playing after the 17th over, but once the umpires had decided they were going to do so, I think they really had to see that decision through to its logical conclusion (i.e. 20 overs to get a match in).

By not coming off even though conditions were considerably worse than when they had taken everyone off earlier, they were not being consistent, and that is *not* officiating to the letter of the ICC regulation.

JKLever wrote:So we've had a clarification of the laws from MCC after game 1, and the ICC have changed the regulations after game 2.

What will game 3 bring?

Hopefully some sort of clarification of the rules regarding streaking.

Rachel wrote:

By not coming off even though conditions were considerably worse than when they had taken everyone off earlier, they were not being consistent, and that is *not* officiating to the letter of the ICC regulation.

Agreed.

Not sure what the umpires remit is tbh, though I believe they are supposed to make sure it is fair for both sides rather than look after the paying publics interest for a finished game.

Dello wrote:

JKLever wrote:So we've had a clarification of the laws from MCC after game 1, and the ICC have changed the regulations after game 2.

What will game 3 bring?

Hopefully some sort of clarification of the rules regarding streaking.

I don't like Skys rule of not showing any streakers during their live coverage. Where are tomorrows Erica Roe's going to come from?

And Eric the Eel.

You're right - it's a fooking disgrace.

?

JKLever wrote:
Not sure what the umpires remit is tbh, though I believe they are supposed to make sure it is fair for both sides rather than look after the paying publics interest for a finished game.

Without getting philosophical about it, their remit is either one thing or the other, and in trying to do both, they've achieved neither.

Rachel wrote:
?

He had shaped up as if he was going to streak to the right, but switched and went lefty at the last minute.

http://leftarmchinaman.blogspot.com/2008/02/streaking-top-ten.html

Blimey, i'd forgotten Lynsey Dawn Mckenzie streaked at Lords...

And that Sheila Nicholls looks like she belongs in the 70's!!

JKL,

Are you commenting on her hairstyle?

Rachel wrote:JKL,

Are you commenting on her hairstyle?

Only just noticed the Plunkett entry at 4

Love the smile on the Windian faces...