The ICC will give a shot clock a trial run and it should not only become permanent but be more stringent to speed up cricket in all three formats.
Starting with next Sunday’s West Indies vs England men’s ODI series in the Caribbean, fielding teams will have 60 seconds at the end of each over to be ready to bowl the next one.
If they fail to do so three times in an innings, they will cough up five penalty runs.
The idea has merit but should go further. A minute is more than enough time to get ready for the next over – make it 45 seconds in white-ball games at least where endurance is less of a factor for fielding sides.
And make the rules apply to the batting side as well. If a batter is not ready to receive the ball after the same timeframe in between overs, throw a five-run penalty their team’s way as well.
There is a virtually pointless time limit placed on batters at the fall of a wicket of 2-3 minutes depending on the playing conditions of a tournament, as Sri Lankan veteran Angelo Mathews can attest to after his controversial timed out dismissal against Bangladesh in the World Cup.
Angelo Mathews leaves the field after being timed out in Sri Lanka’s World Cup clash with Bangladesh. (Photo by Matt Roberts-ICC/ICC via Getty Images)
Timed out should be removed as a form of dismissal in the Laws of Cricket and replaced with penalty runs.
Once the finger goes up or the third umpire flashes out to signal a dismissal, the countdown clock should be on the big screen to let the incoming batter know how long they’ve got to get in position. If they fail to do so, being told to do the walk of shame a la Mathews back to the pavilion is too heavy handed.
But a five-run penalty is a more appropriate punishment.
Bangladesh skipper Shakib Al Hasan denigrated his already spotty reputation when he appealed to Marais Erasmus to capitalise on Mathews’ misfortune of his helmet strap snapping before he was ready to face guard.
Such extraordinary incidents should not depend on whether the fielding captain appeals or not. It is a black and white issue of a batter being ready in time or not, a shot clock not only removes any grey area but could also be an extra avenue for fans to get involved by counting down the seconds if a batter is cutting it fine.
The in-between overs shot clock is on a six-month trial run, according to the ICC, which has been typically slow to react on this issue after the MCC rules committee containing Ricky Ponting, Sourav Ganguly and Kumar Sangakkara recommended this five years ago.
“The clock will be used to regulate the amount of time taken between overs,” the ICC announced. “If the bowling team is not ready to bowl the next over within 60 seconds of the previous over being completed, a five-run penalty will be imposed the third time it happens in an innings.”
A three strikes policy is also too lenient. Give the fielding team one warning and if the skipper is too slow to catch on, ping them the next time they transgress.
Penalty runs are more of a deterrent than the current system where a team has to bring an extra fielder inside the 30-metre circle at the end of an innings if they haven’t bowled the allotted number of overs in time.
That system only affects teams if the batting side sees out the full number of overs and is still just a marginal penalty.
Still it’s better than the old docking of match fees for slow over rates – in the era of T20 franchise deals, those penalties only punish the players from poorer cricketing nations. Match fees are not even loose change in the glovebox of the modern professional’s sportscar of choice.
The shot clock has spread from basketball to other sports like tennis and rugby league and has generally proved effective.
Even if it doesn’t lead to penalties being dished out in cricket on a regular basis, it will ensure teams are aware of time rather than their current laissez-faire attitude of meandering through at their own pace, holding ad-hoc planning committees at the start of each over to work out every field placement to the centimetre.
(Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
Of course there is nothing in this current proposal which speeds up the game apart from at the start of an over.
Teams could bowl the first ball of an over and then take their sweet time for the next delivery or whenever they like later in the over.
A shot clock in between deliveries is a step too far but it’s not out of the equation if teams continue to dawdle.
Empowering umpires to use the five-run penalty for deliberate time wasting after repeated warnings – whether that’s the batting pair or the fielding side – should be encouraged.
Umpires appear reluctant and unwilling to intervene when teams drag their feet, much to the chagrin of TV executives and, more importantly, viewers, not to mention the spectators at the stadium who are forced to endure a longer day than they should.
The shot clock could be a major step in the right direction for cricket, if it’s applied correctly, and the players don’t whinge their way out of it but unfortunately it’s hard to put too much faith in the ICC to implement it successfully.
Indian skipper Rohit Sharma inspects the pitch at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai before the World Cup semi-final. (Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
Buried in the small print of their announcement about the shot clock trial after the recent ICC board meeting was the decision to change sanctions for poor pitches.
Now a venue has to accrue six demerit points over the course of five years to then cop a one-year ban from hosting international matches.
Let’s not use names in this example and just say one nation dishes up a terrible pitch that is a nightmare for batters and is over by the first session of day three.
If the pitch is deemed to be poor, this has to then happen two more times within a five-year timeframe for the venue to lose hosting status.
It’s almost like a certain board from a certain part of the subcontinent has kicked up a stink yet again after recent criticism and has made it even harder for them to be sanctioned in the future. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
I do like the idea of a shot clock for time between overs. Sadly, very easy to get around. A team has to be ready to bowl the over in 60 seconds. Fine, bowl one ball then do the changesd and talking to bowlers and fielders. An alternative which has been tried is that if a side goes over the time limit in bowling their overs, say the last three overs are past the time for change of innings, the team then loses those opvers when batting i.e. they only get 47 overs. Only works thoughif the team bowling first is too slow.
Blink
Roar Rookie
Excellent ideas Paul. IPL has become ridiculous like American basketball with time outs and the last over taking an eternity if the game is close; (Each ball of course requires a team meeting). As for the last one, well I enjoyed those tests on spinning wickets. The bowlers toss up like hand grenades and the batter delivers or doesn't. Its great viewing and beats waiting for a quick bowler to dwardle back to his mark for the next ball. And you don't have to wait 4 or five days for a result.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
"I’m not sure it’s the umpires job to judge the perception of the batsmen, at least not with the current size of sight screens. " Sight screens at most grounds are very large but not all. Lords, for example have tiny sight screens at the Members end and there are more than a few other grounds that have similar issues, eg in the West Indies, etc. The simple answer is to not allow spectators within 5 metres of these screens. That way there can be no excuse a batsman was distracted. It would also annoy the members at Lords!
Tempo
Roar Rookie
Under the laws of cricket, batters have three minutes to be ready to face up, not two. The two minutes is an ICC playing condition for ODI cricket. I believe it's 90 seconds in T20I cricket from memory. Test cricket is still three minutes. I'm not sure whether Nathan Lyon got to the crease within three minutes or not, I haven't timed it. He did get down early to the Long Room to give himself the best chance of not being timed out. If he had taken longer than three minutes then he could have been timed out. I think in almost all cases a captain would not appeal under those circumstances. It's different to the Shakib case where Mathews clearly did not do everything in his power to prevent a timed out dismissal. He was slow in getting out there and failed to observe the common courtesy of asking the umpires if he could change his helmet (after being warned he was running short of time). I suspect if Mathews had asked then the appeal would not have been made. Still, if Stokes had appealed and Lyon took longer than three minutes and was given out then so be it - it would have been a fair dismissal under the laws of the game. Even if caused by injury, that's part of the game. If Lyon got bowled because his injury meant he couldn't get his feet in a good position to defend then no-one would be saying he shouldn't be given out because of that. I think it's fine to allow captains discretion as to whether they wish to appeal or withdraw an appeal for a dismissal, that allows them to apply their own cricketing values to a situation. For the batter, the laws are very clear and it is their responsibility to do everything in their power to prevent themselves being dismissed. If you leave yourself at the mercy of the opposing captain then you can't really complain if they choose to dismiss you.
ColinT
Roar Rookie
I agree there are some batsmen who might have trouble concentrating on the ball, but that is surely their problem. I’m not sure it’s the umpires job to judge the perception of the batsmen, at least not with the current size of sight screens. IMO, Spectator movement away from these enormous sight screens should not be an allowable reason to interrupt the bowlers run-up, and such interruptions should be penalised. The knowledge of a possible penalty might help concentrate the mind of the batsman on watching the ball.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I get your point but it's the perception of the batsman that's tough for umpires to judge. Some can fail to be distracted at all, while others can see movement that's well out of range of where the bowler's going to deliver the ball. Not sure how this problem can be fixed
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
That was pretty much the logic behing the ICC's decision to keep the Law in place. They argued that why change when it had only been applied a handful of times in first class cricket? I think it needs some tinkering though. I saw a clip of Nathan Lyons hobbling out to bat in the Lords Test this year and there's no way he got to the wicket inside 2 minutes which meant, in theory, Ben Stokes could have appealed and Lyon would have been out, timed out. Perhaps umpires need to consider why the batsman isn't ready as part of that decision. If it's for a health or safety reason, perhaps they could have some discretion in giving a batsman out in this way. This discretion would not include batsmen forgetting to bring out safety equipment like arm guards, etc. They should have had enough time to get properly kitted up.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Yeah, why have a warning? A clock counting down time on the screen at grounds would be ok. Players know the rules. They’d stop if losing a run for it
Tempo
Roar Rookie
I'm not sure about the logic of removing timed out as a form of dismissal when it has happened once in nearly 150 years of international cricket. The purpose of the Timed Out law is to allow the game to continue where a batter is not ready to face up. For example, in club cricket where a player might need to leave to attend to a family emergency or slept in due to a big night out. If the opposing captain decided not to declare with that player absent, how will the innings end if the timed out law is removed? Match forfeiture in these circumstances is also governed by the timed out law. The Timed Out law is a very good law which has a clear purpose - batters need to front up to the crease in a timely manner or the game continues without them. There is absolutely no need to get rid of it because Angelo Mathews was too slow getting to the crease and then failed to check with the umpire before changing his helmet. Getting rid of it and replacing it with penalty runs is as bad an idea as getting rid of run outs at the non strikers end. Both laws are perfectly fine as they are and anyone falling foul of it only has themselves to blame.
ColinT
Roar Rookie
Another example of time wasting is when batsmen interrupt a bowlers run-up because a spectator nearby to the enormous sight screen has allegedly moved. That may have been legitimate back when sight screens were small screens mounted on wheels, but today the screens are enormous, covering two or even three whole bays of seating. Jonny Bairstow springs to mind. The umpires already have the power to crack down on this sort of time wasting and IMO they should do so.
Linphoma
Roar Rookie
Hang on, is this a gee-up? I'm searching ESPNCricinfo, ICC and MCC websites and see no announcement. Not that the last two offer anything approaching news on the sport. Were these rule changes trialled at any level in competition?
ColinT
Roar Rookie
Paul, were there any actual bowling statistics in the recent WC matches involving the Indian team that support the assertions that India doctored pitches to make them ‘spin friendly’? It is such a ludicrous conspiracy theory when you examine the actual bowling statistics. And it doesn’t even make sense when you consider that India relied heavily on its excellent pace attack. I suggest it’s time to put the conspiracy in the bin where it belongs.
Frodo
Roar Rookie
Fantastic idea, Paul. Makes it black and white and takes umpires 'feelings' and 'interpretations' out of the equation. All for it.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
Many of the suggestions in this piece have merit, but why don't we wait until these are used for a period and see how they work? I'm guessing those who looked at these changes think/hope they'll be enough of a deterrent. If the problem persists, crack down harder. As for other time wasting, Laws 41.9 (bowling team) and 41,10 (batting team), already offer umpires the option of giving a first and final warning to the offending team then penalizing 5 runs if they re-offend. Maybe it's simply a case of putting teams on notice then instructing umpires to enforce this Law more strictly. The change to the rules about poor pitches does nothing to improve cricket wickets and only provides incentives to abuse the system. I think captains and match officials must be able to abandon Tests, not only if they're dangerous for play, but if they're likely to either been deemed poor or not offer a balanced contest between bat & ball. That would prevent complete roads being prepared, as well as pitches that favour a particular type of bowler.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
Fantastic news. I would just like it to be a bit simpler. I would prefer no warnings and one run awarded to the opposing team every time a batsman or bowler is not ready by the time the shot clock reaches 0.
Linphoma
Roar Rookie
ICC - Indian Cricket Celebration.