ICC's General Manager (Cricket) David Richardson answered questions from the ICC's Facebook and Twitter followers on the new Playing Conditions which came into effect on 1 October.Watch out for upcoming Facebook and Twitter chats with other leading players and officials.
Anirudh Rajagopal: Don't you think the Powerplays have made the batsman's game even more friendlier to them? Can you consider about the third powerplay and the ball change accompanied with it?
Powerplays are designed to encourage the batsman to hit more boundaries as opposed to pushing the ball around for ones and twos. There is an increased risk with looking to hit boundaries rather than accumulating ones and twos which is to the benefit of the bowlers. It becomes a case of risk and reward for the batsman. In practice, this has proven to be the case. Whilst more runs are scored during the powerplay overs, there has also been the tendency for more wickets to fall, making for more exciting cricket all round. With the introduction of the use of two new balls per innings (one from each end), the mandatory change of ball at the start of the 35th over will not occur. Hence it will no longer be possible for the teams to coincide the taking of a powerplay with the change of the ball.
Sarosh Khoja: what are your initiatives to save ODI?
The success of the ICC CWC 2011 provided ample evidence that there is still very much a demand from both a television and spectator perspective for the longer version of the limited overs game. Notwithstanding this, ICC has introduced some changes aimed at making ODI cricket more exciting especially in the middle overs by improving the balance between bat and ball. Firstly, it has introduced the use of two new balls per innings, one from each end, and secondly, it has made it mandatory for the second and third powerplay overs to be taken between the 16th and 40th overs.
Sumit Nene: When will day night Tests come into the picture?
ICC is currently in the research stage with the focus on working with cricket ball manufacturers to develop a different coloured ball that can be used in day/night conditions but that can retain its colour for at least 80 overs as is required for Test cricket. Whilst considerable progress has been made in developing a ball that retains the essential basic properties of the red ball but that is suitable for day/night cricket, it is necessary for this new ball to be extensively trialled at first-class level before any decision can be taken to use them at Test level. A number of trials are being carried out over the next 6 - 8 months and the results will be considered by the ICC Cricket Committee meeting at its next meeting in May 2012. Hopefully we will be in a position to play Test cricket under lights sometime in 2012/13.
Bodhisatya Das: Why was it thought that 11th-15th over was not suitable to take the 2nd or 3rd powerplay as against the proposed 16th over?
One of the main criticisms of the ODI game was what is often referred to as the "boring middle overs" when the batting team settled into a comfortable risk free accumulation phase of working the ball around with the field spread for ones and twos. Under the old regulations, more often than not, the bowling team took the bowling power play as soon as it could i.e. from the 11th to the 15th over (while the ball was still relatively new) and the batting team left its power play to the end of the innings when it was secure in the knowledge that it had enough wickets in hand not be bowled out within the 50 overs and when it wished to accelerate the run rate. This obviously did not solve the initial problem of the "boring middle overs" and hence the decision to restrict the powerplays to between the 16th and 40th overs.
Shahad Farook: Mr. Richardson I would like to know, isn't the DRS technology embarrassing for the umpire when he reverses his decision?
Umpires are embarrassed whenever they are shown to make a mistake, be it when their decision is reversed under the DRS or when it is shown to be an error on television. The majority of the umpires do say however that they would prefer their mistake to be rectified than have to live with the ongoing anguish and resentment of the players and fans that their mistake may have changed the course of a match or a player's career. What the use of the DRS has shown is that the umpires actually get a very large percentage of their decisions correct. In over 75% of cases where a review of a decision has been requested, the umpire is shown to be correct. The DRS has in fact led to a greater recognition as to how good the Emirates Elite Panel umpires actually are rather than it being a source of embarrassment.
Nikhil Mukund: Why are "free hits" not given for a wide delivery?
Good question. The main motive behind a free hit is to cut down the number of no balls (statistics have shown that free hits have in fact been very effective in reducing the number of no balls). In theory, it should be easier for a bowler to avoid over stepping than it is for him to avoid bowling a wide. Wides are already very strictly interpreted in One-Day Internationals with the bowler having little margin for error. If we were to introduce a free hit for wides, I do not think it would have much of an impact in reducing the number of wides bowled.
Deepak Katte: Dave, My question to you is directed at a specific regulation ICC has in its Playing Conditions (for One Day Internationals, etc.) "42.4.1 [Law 42.6 (a)] (d) & (f) - The Bowling of Fast Short Pitched Balls". I'm asking this question purely for my own understanding sake and should not be interpreted/construed otherwise.My question to you sir is, what is the logic behind calling/classifying such a ball bouncing OVER THE HEAD as a WIDE BALL instead of it being called a No-BALL, as the Laws of Cricket so mandate?
This is a very good question. The Laws are designed for all levels of the game including schools and clubs. One of the main reasons for the Laws providing for such a delivery to be called a no ball is because the Law makers regard short pitched deliveries as potentially dangerous and accordingly wish to deter bowlers from seeking to gain a wicket by means of such short pitched bowling. At international level, it is recognised that the batsmen are generally more skilled and the focus is slightly different. One of the more exciting sights in international cricket is to see a fast bowler being hooked for four. In order for a bowler to gain a wicket with a short ball it is often the bowler's objective to entice the batsman into the hook shot but to get the ball up to a height where it becomes difficult for the batsman to control the shot. Accordingly we did not want to deny the bowler of the opportunity of taking the wicket by calling such a delivery a no ball. If the bowler was able to entice the batsman into the shot and was able to secure the batsman's wicket by doing so then the bowler should be rewarded. If however the batsman chose to ignore the delivery or was unable to hit it, the bowler would still run the risk of the delivery being called a wide. You could see it as a risk and reward kind of situation for the bowler.
Rohit Tadilkar: Why do you abandon a day match during rain, why cannot the rest of the game be played under lights?
This is mainly due to timing issues. Most One-Day Internationals do provide for extra time but where do you draw the line. We could not have a situation where the players are sitting around for hours hoping for the rain to stop.
Vishal Naidu: If runners are not allowed for an injured batsman, then why should a substitute be allowed to field? :
Running between the wickets was considered as much a part of batting as hitting the ball. Batting should be comparable to the function of bowling. If a bowler cannot run, he cannot bowl. Having said that, it would not probably have been necessary to revert to this regulation had batsman not abused the Law by asking for runners in circumstances where the injury was relatively minor.
@RTCricket: Why two new balls will be used don't you think this will hugely affect the spinners?
No. The effect of this regulation on spinners was considered. There were two former international spin bowlers on the Cricket Committee both of whom were strongly of the view that spin bowlers actually preferred and were more effective with the harder ball with a more prominent seam. This fact is borne out b the success that spin bowlers have enjoyed in the T20 format of the game.
@criccrazy_dhruv: Don't you think using new ball from both the ends will destroy the art of reverse swing?
Perhaps it will have an impact on the ability of bowlers to reverse swing the ball but it certainly would be more advantageous to conventional swing. Furthermore we have seen that even in T20 cricket, there are certain bowlers who are able to produce reverse swing towards the end of an innings. In an ODI each ball will effectively be used for 25 overs. This should be enough time for bowlers skilled in the art of reverse swing to do so towards the end of the innings.
@InnoBystander: How about ensuring 90 overs in a day so paying public isn't shortchanged?
The players are provided six and a half hours to complete 90 overs. If the public is required to hang around for longer than six and half hours to watch 90 overs, then they are being short changed anyway. We would prefer the focus to be on increasing the general pace of play so that 90 overs are completed rather than allowing the players to dally along completing the overs in their own time. To this end ICC has recently introduced even more stringent penalty provisions for slow over rates and players who waste time.
