Warney's radical proposal to stop slow over-rates after India fall behind again

Firstly, thank you Bernie for kindly accepting my feedback. I concur with what your original plans for the series were. It is certainly something that should be kept in mind. Editors changing headlines was a bug bear of mine too so again can empathise with you there. If you don't mind me offering a final comment on this, perhaps a good way to bring it to a close would be to pitch to the reader why your system works better than the current one and tie everything together, if you can understand what I mean. This could just be an add-on at the end of part 3b, your choice how you want to fit it all together, obviously. All the best.

“Second offence in the same game would be removal from the match and a further match suspension”. That is in no way anywhere near as silly as some might purport it to sound. The latest rewrite of the laws of cricket added a whole new section covering player behaviour and the measures could be perceived as draconian and even include penalty runs for repeat shows of dissent or immediate penalty runs for level 3 and 4 offences. The option is there as a quick fire way to eradicate feral player behaviour if necessary. The logical step in the evolutionary process is that at the next rewrite, extend it to incorporate similar measures for slow overrates.

Yeah Josh, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with anything you’ve said there. I certainly get that they are long and originally I figured the lesser of the two evils would be for longer parts with less parts. Then when Part 3 got rejected, I negotiated with the editor to split it in two parts a and b. It’s just a topic that frustrates me, as the cricket association I umpire in refuse to move out of the original dud method of more than 30 years ago, others have mostly still used the highest scoring overs method but are now in recent times switching to a convenient standard D\L calculator that is also often way off the mark. I just thought I would relieve my boredom by putting it on a public forum and I will probably pull the pin after 3b gets published as the remaining 3 or more parts are just more extensions with the main crux pretty much already covered – I just wish Part 3b was not taking so long. “Can I ask if you have written out the series in full already?” Yes of course you can … As I created this system, which I completed more than six years ago, I wrote little things just for future reference and some were notes to base future presentations on should I ever get the opportunity to present it to relevant cricket associations, at whatever level of the game. The majority of it I just broke up, swapped around and edited on a limited capacity and then wrote a suitable intro (Part 1) to set the scene … I realise the end product resembles more an academic thesis, than journalism, but by this time, I was envisaging the equivalent of a ‘feature article’, the kind you might see occupying three or four pages of a broad sheet newspaper in a series over half a dozen consecutive Sundays if that makes sense. But I must say, I am also very disappointed that the roar editors insist on using the title ‘Reinventing DLS’ … to me, this is disparaging in the same way as if someone had claimed the Wright brothers were reinventing the automobile back in the day … just as they had come up with a whole new invention, mine is also a whole new different system.

As I alluded to earlier, all I want is for things to be fair. Your examples above are just that, keeping things simple, but still penalising the side who is responsible for the slow over rate. Critics may say that, by reducing overs, you're not giving people the full match they tuned in/went to see. Just to play devil's advocate a bit there because I do like your idea.

Haha, yes, apologies for bringing up DLS! As a bloke who's spent a lot of time emailing editors, can I just say that, while your DLS series is on point, it's a lengthy series with lengthy articles. I understand you want to explain it thoroughly but, from an editorial standpoint, I can see why you've had some troubles getting the articles published because of the very in-depth nature of your articles. Unfortunate though it is from your personal viewpoint, as I can empathise, having had articles rejected or heavily edited myself. I hope you see this as constructive criticism, because it is all with the best intentions, I just wanted to offer what I have learnt from writing over the past year and a half or so. Can I ask if you have written out the series in full already?

Honestly I think they're absolutely raking it in having the game go later into prime time in the sub continent. Being able to take more money from the players for the slow over rates is just a nice little cherry on top. Of course they don't care about the actual game, if they did they'd have order kookaburra to fix the cricket balls five years ago. A board filled with temporary businessmen who because they're only in the job for 2 years could not care less about the future of the game

However, in the case of slow overrates, as opposed to rain, why not just do it like this: Example 1, batting side at fault (bowling side on top) 9 for 240 after 46. Innings ends and the chasing team get the full 50 overs. Example 2, bowling side at fault (batting side on top) 3 for 295 after 46. They complete the 50 overs and then the chasing side only receive 46 in chasing whatever target they are set.

You’re very welcome Josh, my pleasure mate … Please don’t get me started on DLS … but your point is totally valid i.e. if the bowling side were on top, that advantage would be lost. For example, if they were 9 for 240 after 46 overs, the probable scenario is that they would have wrapped up the last wicket with another 3 or so runs added, and then would have been chasing 244 in 50 overs rather than 241 off 46. If it was the bowling team’s fault the last 4 overs were not completed then tough luck, they only have themselves to blame. I have been posting a series of finding something better than DLS and posted part 3b well over a week ago and I am getting frustrated it has not been published as that part 3b is a direct continuation of part 3a. Anyway, my system could also be used for slow overrates. Two examples: Example 1, batting side at fault, finish 9 for 240 off 46 overs. Their score, based on mathematical perfectness projects to a 50 over score of 253. Thereafter, the side batting second have a par score for victory of 8 for 224. Above par scores after 46 overs are 0 for 221, 1 for 221, 2 for 221, 3 for 222, 4 for 222, 5 for 222, 6 for 223 and 7 for 223. The sole below par score for victory after 46 overs would be 9 for 241. Example 2, bowling side at fault and batting side are 3 for 295 after 46 overs. This gets projected to a 50 over score of 333. Then the par target for the second side after 46 overs would be 8 for 307, above par scores 0 for 290, 1 for 292, 2 for 294, 3 for 296, 4 for 298, 5 for 300, 6 for 302 and 7 for 304 while the sole below par score would be 9 for 330.

No worries, thank you for your explanation. So you penalise by not allowing the batting side their full allocation of overs. Will the bowling side be allowed a full 50 overs in their reply regardless without any D/L/S to compensate for the reduced overs for the batting side?

No you are not a cynic at all.

Second offence in the same game would be removal from the match and a further match suspension.

Call me a cynic if you like but does CA or the broadcasters want the game to be over quicker? The broadcasters get to sell more adverts and CA reaps the benefit of this indirectly. Neither of them actually care about the game or the fans.

Yes you have missed something very important with all due respect: If the batting side you are are not on time every time then don’t expect your full complement of overs. The moral of the story for the batting side is thus: if the shortfall of maximum overs at the scheduled cut off time is the result of the batting side being tardy, don’t whinge if deprived of some vital slog overs with key wickets in hand at the end.

This has got to be sorted by the umpires on the field - they are the ones that allow new gloves every few overs and they are the ones that allow the fielding captain to take his time. Solution: the umpires are instructed to ensure the game keeps moving. They are given the power to send the captain off for up to 5 overs if the game gets behind and they believe it is the fielding captain taking his time. Imagine Kohli or Finch being sent to the sin bin for 5 overs and you have field with 10 players! Naturally, the umpires would issue a warning but I assure you, this will get the game going. If a batsman is wasting time the he too can be sent to the sin bin for 5 overs or until the next wicket falls after 5 overs have elapsed.

So how do you penalise poor over rates then? Or have I missed something?

Spruce in game's I umpire, I always note the time the openers get out to the middle and being ready includes the square leg being in position. Then a reduction of one over per every 4 minutes or part thereof. So 10.06 then 48 overs at the scheduled time of innings compulsory closure is an acceptable effort. Two drinks breaks of 3 minutes if the batting side linger and they stretch to 5 and 6 minutes then thats a total of 5 minutes too long so 46 overs is then acceptable. In t20 with only a minute and a half (instead of the normal 3) for next batsman in after a dismissal i note and add up those that exceed this.

And bat changes should only be made if the bat is broken in half and the bottom half is somewhere near short mid-wicket :laughing:

So basically if I'm Australia and I need 30 runs from the last 6 balls I should just feign cramp for 4.5 minutes and get the total down to 5? There's no real effect you want it to have on the game, ODIs should stay 50 overs a side without penalties. Yet to see a really good idea to deal with the situation but I reckon someone will come up with one. Either way, having worked Friday and Sunday I was pretty happy with the slow over rates

It does need to be a two way street for sure, the batting team should also be punished. Once the bowler is at his mark, the batsman must be ready to face the ball. If not: penalty. Any unscheduled drinks break by the batsman should be penalised. Any of the ridiculous glove changes by the batsman should be penalised if it can't be done within a standard set time in between overs. I love the idea of 25 runs by Warne. All sports have shown repeatedly that the more draconian the punishment for trivial infringements, the faster the problem is eradicated.

Don't mind the idea but 25 runs per over is obviously way too much. Obviously would be difficult to rule on as batsman would take advantage and take their time to try and get a few extra runs.