Do you care about over rates enough to support penalties?

[Adders]

Yeah, im thinking watching Marshall, Garner, Holding et al sending down 80 overs in a day is better value for money than watching the likes of a Joe Root or Michael Clarke rushing through overs in the last hour.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

No, and the thing is a lot of it is more something like captains taking an interminable period to move a man on the off side only for the bowler to then bowl a long-hope down leg, or watching bowlers of the quality of Shannon Gabriel.

And India knows about Michael Clarke rushing through overs in the last hour or something.

 

[Bijed]

No, and the thing is a lot of it is more something like captains taking an interminable period to move a man on the off side

Yeah, this. People saying they'd rather watch fewer overs of quality cricket than using junk bowling to make up the difference are correct but also missing the point a bit. The problems are the pointless/faffy micro-delays that add up over the course of a day or match. They don't turn a good day of cricket into a bad one or anything, but there's no reason not to want them gone

Commentators overblow the issue, but it feels like as a result of this, "Complaining about people complaining about over-rates" is just the position people fall into

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, this. People saying they'd rather watch fewer overs of quality cricket than using junk bowling to make up the difference are correct but also missing the point a bit. The problems are the pointless/faffy micro-delays that add up over the course of a day or match. They don't turn a good day of cricket into a bad one or anything, but there's no reason not to want them gone

Doesn't matter. Whether it's the fast bowlers themselves being slow or the captain taking too long to set a field that causes the issue, the end result is the same. If they need to rush through overs with worse bowlers instead of good bowlers then that's what will happen.

You can't just say "you need to get through your overs quicker, but you have to do it this way and not that way"

 

[Bijed]

Doesn't matter. Whether it's the fast bowlers themselves being slow or the captain taking too long to set a field that causes the issue, the end result is the same. If they need to rush through overs with worse bowlers instead of good bowlers then that's what will happen.

You can't just say "you need to get through your overs quicker, but you have to do it this way and not that way"

Fair enough, fair point that there's no good way to make teams deal with it in the 'right' way - unless you had a system where umpires could in real time say "You're taking too long with field changes, speed things up" and if they transgress again then the penalty is issued there and then (with the ability to appeal post match, but you can't make you for it later by bowling loads of part-timers). Consistentcy of application would be a potential nightmare though

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah, this. People saying they'd rather watch fewer overs of quality cricket than using junk bowling to make up the difference are correct but also missing the point a bit. The problems are the pointless/faffy micro-delays that add up over the course of a day or match. They don't turn a good day of cricket into a bad one or anything, but there's no reason not to want them gone

Another problem with this argument is that it's just plain disingenuous. Aside from the fact that Clive Lloyd Inc. employed slow over rates as a strategy that was more pronounced at times than others, and that while murmers about the sometimes interminable time they took between balls existed (and looking at ball by balls spells it's not hard to see why), no one decries what should have been a tremendous loss of quality from all those overs Holding bowling off the short run.

The fact is, you're not usually making a quality tradeoff. Most attacks aren't Holding, Marshall and Garner. If anything slow over rates are often associated with relatively poor, disorganised bowling efforts of which England's day 2 Brisbane effort was a vintage example, as are too many recent WI efforts to count. Too any people say 'oh you'll force teams to rush overs with rubbish bowlers' without asking if that would even be necessary.

For myself the cricket is not usually sufficiently arresting that constant delays due to faffing with the field and dawdling bowlers (and batsmen!) aren't at least slightly irritating. I think that's why I have a lot of trouble watching T20, especially when it's not very high quality like the BBL. My ability to care about the excitement of the prior or subsequent ball decreases when there's so bloody long between them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Another problem with this argument is that it's just plain disingenuous. Aside from the fact that Clive Lloyd Inc. employed slow over rates as a strategy that was more pronounced at times than others, and that while murmers about the sometimes interminable time they took between balls existed (and looking at ball by balls spells it's not hard to see why), no one decries what should have been a tremendous loss of quality from all those overs Holding bowling off the short run.

The fact is, you're not usually making a quality tradeoff. Most attacks aren't Holding, Marshall and Garner. If anything slow over rates are often associated with relatively poor, disorganised bowling efforts of which England's day 2 Brisbane effort was a vintage example, as are too many recent WI efforts to count. Too any people say 'oh you'll force teams to rush overs with rubbish bowlers' without asking if that would even be necessary.

For myself the cricket is not usually sufficiently arresting that constant delays due to faffing with the field and dawdling bowlers (and batsmen!) aren't at least slightly irritating. I think that's why I have a lot of trouble watching T20, especially when it's not very high quality like the BBL. My ability to care about the excitement of the prior or subsequent ball decreases when there's so bloody long between them.

You've just reiterated what Bijed said, which is fine and you're right about the main cause behind slow over rates being disorganised captaincy, but it still doesn't matter. It's not hypothetical that captains will bowl more **** part timers to make up for a low over rate, regardless of how it was caused in the first place. It happens.

No one is saying "you have to bowl part-time spinners to get your overs in time" which I think is what you inferred

 

[wellAlbidarned]

fair to say then the solution isn't so much as to punish slow overrates after the fact, but encourage umpires identify and deter time wasting bullshit as it happens (slow field changes, batsmen getting new gloves, drinks coming out, batsmen not being ready to face). Not an easy task but surely improvements can be made.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Batting sides slowing things down should be focused on and stopped just as much, if not more, than bowling sides IMO

Bowler should never have to wait for a batsman to be ready outside of the occasional genuine piece of broken equipment/injury

 

[wellAlbidarned]

yeah definitely. always ****s me off at the end of a day how the drinks coming out for the batsmen and then taking 30 seconds prodding the pitch is accepted as 'gamesmanship' and the commentators have a chuckle as though it's ok. This is a time-restricted sport therefore wasting time intentionally should be classed as a form of cheating.

reckon maybe a warning system similar to bowlers running on the pitch could be interesting. Three strikes and gtfo, would definitely help with batsmen taking the piss between deliveries. As it stands umpires can tell them to hurry up but there's no actual punishment.

 

[Starfighter]

'Gamesmanship' is usually just a polite term for cheating anyway.

 

[Victor Ian]

Penalties should apply in real time. Don't they award the point to the other player in tennis if you take to long to serve? Do the same. Award an extra, then two, then three, etc if you are taking too long to bowl. It's easy to bowl on time but if the umpire is not policing it it's also easy to lose track of time.

 

[Starfighter]

Penalties should apply in real time. Don't they award the point to the other player in tennis if you take to long to serve? Do the same. Award an extra, then two, then three, etc if you are taking too long to bowl. It's easy to bowl on time but if the umpire is not policing it it's also easy to lose track of time.

That would be pretty difficult to police I think, particularly time wasting by the batsmen as they might have a 'good enough' excuse, plus you'd have to keep track of a lot. Then there's the judgement of how long is long enough.

In my own experience time loss varies quite a lot in how it occurs. If it's pace bowlers with overlong runs then it can be gradual, but it's quite common for it to be sudden, teams often are quite sluggish the first couple of overs after the break or when a couple of wickets fall. It's quite hard to arrest this as it happens almost before you know it.

One thing I'd be in favour of in club cricket is limiting the length of bowlers runs, because once they traipse back along their 25 metre run plus twelve metres of follow through you lose a lot of time. Wouldn't go down well though, heck I ran that far when I was playing.

 

[Victor Ian]

You've got 6 hours of play for 90 overs so 360mins/90overs is 4 mins an over. 4mins an overs is 40 seconds per ball. That is what is expected. It would not be hard to police in real time. You could do it in 5 over blocks where being consitently slow would cost you 18 runs per day.
You could have a simple device, like umpires use to count balls with a simple program that allows them to inform teams in real time of how they are going. You could make an app on a phone. It could allow measuring when batsmen are holding things up. You could deduct runs for that. It could do whatever you want to help keep players in check.
Considering everyone has smart phones, a simple free app could be made to account for this from ground levels up. really, it's a piece of piss, if they want to solve it.
The reason I think they should award extras for slow play is because deducting ladder points is too harsh. A team might be good enough to suffer in game penalties and still win.
I guess the problem is then with losing teams slowing things down to maybe get out with a draw. That is why, perhaps increasing penalties if you are falling too far behind might be needed, such that purposely going slow will result in the other team getting enough benefit to still win.

 

[cnerd123]

This is a time-restricted sport therefore wasting time intentionally should be classed as a form of cheating.

It's already covered under law 41.10, but I've never actually seen anyone pulled up on it.

 

[cnerd123]

In my own experience time loss varies quite a lot in how it occurs. If it's pace bowlers with overlong runs then it can be gradual, but it's quite common for it to be sudden, teams often are quite sluggish the first couple of overs after the break or when a couple of wickets fall. It's quite hard to arrest this as it happens almost before you know it.

You also need to give teams a chance to catch up. Some sides may have an army of spinners to turn to after the ball loses it's shine, so overs lost in the first hour or so can often be caught up by end of the innings.

 

[h_hurricane]

Every team should have a Jadeja to save you from all this ****. At the same time picking a wicket costing less than 25.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Every team should have a Jadeja to save you from all this ****. At the same time picking a wicket costing less than 25.

Yet another thread etc…

 

[h_hurricane]

Yet another thread etc…

Hope that goes to 26 pages as well. Can't have enough of Jadeja celebration.

 

[CricAddict]

Hope that goes to 26 pages as well. Can't have enough of Jadeja celebration.

He meant the answer is Jadeja for yet another thread now.