33rd Match - New Zealand v Pakistan

[cnerd123]

It's honestly stupid. You know what would fix it? If the ****ing match referee (and umpires) actually timed the gap between overs (and how long an over takes). If penalty runs (or losing your wicket due to time wasting) impacted the live game, thats actually going to see people getting a move on. What other sport deals with problems this way?

They do this already.

Umpires and.match referee do track the time taken for each over and captains get multiple updates over the course of an innings with regards to where they stand on overrate. Allowances for time lost due to reasons that aren't the fielding sides fault are kept too. They only get penalised if they ignore all warnings and are still slow despite all allowances.

Some places do have penalty runs in place for slow overrates in their competitions. HK does it, for example. We need to because we can't stay on beyond our ground booking times, so we have pretty harsh penalities to get games completed. But we also suspend captains with multiple infractions.

Deliberate time wasting is already covered under the laws too, but slow overrates aren't always deliberate.

The problem again with run penalties is that it doesn't work in all situations. You scored 350, the opposition is 110/9. A run penalty isn't going to incentivise you to wrap up your overs on time. And let's say we have a thrilling game that ends in the final over, and the result gets overturned because a side was found to be slow on overrate. I guarantee you everyone will be outraged. You already see what happens when DLS kicks in.

 

[Athlai]

If the opposition is 110/9 its probably not going to 50 overs is it? The result can't be overturned because the umpires and match ref award the runs literally at the start of an over in this time management scenario.

 

[cnerd123]

If the opposition is 110/9 its probably not going to 50 overs is it? The result can't be overturned because the umpires and match ref award the runs literally at the start of an over in this time management scenario.

You calculate overrate at the end of the innings ATM. Teams know when they're behind or ahead, but the final time taken is what's used.

If what you're suggesting is an over by over time limit then that's a bit unreasonable. Bowlers complete their overs at different rates, a team should be able to balance out a guy like Akhtar with a guy like Hafeez. Plus having that max time per over or between over (like a timer) would definitely change the dynamics quite a bit. It's an interesting idea but really needs to be fleshed out. Like, what happens if a bowler just bowls a few wides too many? He cuts down his runup and chucks down some filth so he gets the over done in by the buzzer? What if batsmen start to sneakily slow things down to try and win those penalty run each over?

110/9 is obv an extreme example. What I'm saying is that in a lot of situations a run disincentive either won't do anything, or will lead to outrage when it causes a change in match result.

 

[Athlai]

You calculate overrate at the end of the innings ATM. Teams know when they're behind or ahead, but the final time taken is what's used.

If what you're suggesting is an over by over time limit then that's a bit unreasonable. Bowlers complete their overs at different rates, a team should be able to balance out a guy like Akhtar with a guy like Hafeez. Plus having that max time per over or between over (like a timer) would definitely change the dynamics quite a bit. It's an interesting idea but really needs to be fleshed out. Like, what happens if a bowler just bowls a few wides too many? He cuts down his runup and chucks down some filth so he gets the over done in by the buzzer? What if batsmen start to sneakily slow things down to try and win those penalty run each over?

110/9 is obv an extreme example. What I'm saying is that in a lot of situations a run disincentive either won't do anything, or will lead to outrage when it causes a change in match result.

I'm sure they can figure out how to make a timescale that says "middle overs usually are faster than the first and final 10". The calculating it at the end of the innings is the fricken problem.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean, it's an interesting idea, I'm not against it in principle but not convinced yet that it will absolutely work.

I'm not a fan of players missing games for slow overrate either. It's just that you need an effective deterrent, and match-fee fines or even in-game run penalties don't work in all circumstances.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

A good test of whether a rule or penalty is appropriate is whether or not it would be enforced on the biggest stage. If NZ takes an over too long to complete their innings in a dramatic World Cup semi, is Kane going to be suspended for the final? It would make a total joke of the entire tournament, so I say no. Dumb rule.

 

[stephen]

Players missing games for slow over rates is fine. Players missing world cup games for slow over rates is not fine.

 

[cnerd123]

A good test of whether a rule or penalty is appropriate is whether or not it would be enforced on the biggest stage. If NZ takes an over too long to complete their innings in a dramatic World Cup semi, is Kane going to be suspended for the final? It would make a total joke of the entire tournament, so I say no. Dumb rule.

Players missing games for slow over rates is fine. Players missing world cup games for slow over rates is not fine.

yea tbh i'd be very interested to see how the ICC handles this as well

i imagine if they don't suspend Kane, every other cricket board in the ICC (mainly the BCCI lets be honest) will throw a massive fit about it

And when it comes to what the fans want vs what the member boards want...well, I think the history is clear on what the ICC will pick.

But it would be interesting.

 

[Athlai]

It isn't an effective deterrent, it's just resulting in match bans for captains.

Look how many breaches have occured since 2003 when they introduced the potential match bans for captains (and 2016 is when they started to really actually bite the bullet and ban captains, 10 instances of this have occurred since then)

(From Feb this year)

 

[cnerd123]

You've got 200 instances from 2003-2016 and just 10 from 2016-2019?

Sounds like it's working right? Or am I missing something

 

[Athlai]

No, those are matches that had breaches. There were no match bans from 2003-2016 as far as I can tell.

 

[cnerd123]

Oh so you meant 10 bans have occurred since 2016 not 10 breaches.

Yea I mean unless we know the rate of breaches before and after they introduced match bans we won't know if this is actually effective or not. If it's ineffective, then holding onto it out of principle does just hurt the fans more than it solves anything.

 

[Burgey]

Looks like NZ winning the Spirit of Cricket Award again, based on those numbers

 

[Athlai]

Looks like NZ winning the Spirit of Cricket Award again, based on those numbers

I now think that this is why NZ won the spirit of cricket award so much

 

[Athlai]

Oh so you meant 10 bans have occurred since 2016 not 10 breaches.

Yea I mean unless we know the rate of breaches before and after they introduced match bans we won't know if this is actually effective or not. If it's ineffective, then holding onto it out of principle does just hurt the fans more than it solves anything.

ICC has it on their website. Do your own research damn it. Its such a massive non issue and 90% of the breaches are for 1-2 overs. Who gives a ****.

 

[trundler]

ICC has it on their website. Do your own research damn it. Its such a massive non issue and 90% of the breaches are for 1-2 overs. Who gives a ****.

No one — except *****, who once more gets to make fatuous appeals to authority.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

I now think that this is why NZ won the spirit of cricket award so much

They might revoke Williamson's award from last year after this epic scandal of disgraceful sportsmanship.

 

[SteveNZ]

A good test of whether a rule or penalty is appropriate is whether or not it would be enforced on the biggest stage. If NZ takes an over too long to complete their innings in a dramatic World Cup semi, is Kane going to be suspended for the final? It would make a total joke of the entire tournament, so I say no. Dumb rule.

They'd never do it. Same as you never see anyone suspended around State of Origin time in the NRL. It's human nature to take the context of the transgression and apply it as you wish.

Why do the ICC care about over rates in ODIs anyway. TV? Stadium hours? I get it in Tests, you lose play, but we know games get done in ODIs.

 

[stephen]

There's a reason why they're the laws of cricket and not the rules of cricket. Laws can be interpreted situationally.

 

[Starfighter]

There's a reason why they're the laws of cricket and not the rules of cricket. Laws can be interpreted situationally.

That's just grammatical pedantry in this context.