'Stop-Clock' to be trialled in LOIs

[Owzat]

scanned first two pages of threads and couldn't find it, quite a big deal I'd say

'Stop-clock' to be trialled in men's limited-overs internationals

A "stop-clock" will be trialled in men's limited-overs internationals in order to regulate the time taken between overs.

www.bbc.co.uk

The trial, running from December to April, will require a fielding team to be ready to commence a new over within 60 seconds of the previous one ending.
Failing to meet the time limit on three occasions in the same innings will result in a five-run penalty.

Three ODIs and five T20is West Indies vs England to be played under trial conditions.


Glad they're doing something, I guess they'll have to take away the right to confirm when an over has ended from the likes of Carey and give it to the officials

I still prefer tactical penalties over arbitrary run penalties, make it so first offence the bowler can't bowl for 10 overs, say 6 in a T20i, or two strikes and you're out like warnings for transgressing the middle of the pitch, but better than nothing.

I'd also have preferred some 'in over' timer, frankly this strikes me as a tame thing when allowing sides FORTY NINE minutes of time between overs in an ODI, aren't they supposed to be bowled in something like 195?!?!? (used to be) I trust they timed the duration between overs of a few ODIs to gauge an average, could have zero effect if that's a long time as it does seem.

Of course that doesn't mean they can't be penalised for slow over rates overall but could make sides take their eye off the ball focusing on time between overs and maybe even dallying a bit because they are "ahead of the timer"

 

[Owzat]

surprised this has drawn zero reaction so far, people cry out for changes to slow over rates etc and don't even comment!

should have opened yet another analysis of the World Cup or debate GOAT or select a GOAT XI instead news, pft, who wants to discuss that!

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

People probably read who the OP was

 

[Molehill]

Most likely reaction is everyone rushes round for the 1st ball of the over and then has a big discussion straight after it.

 

[Silver Silva]

This will be used to deny batsman hundreds

 

[Molehill]

This will be used to deny batsman hundreds

Kohli's probably on about 41 under the new rule.

 

[ataraxia]

I really don't see why this couldn't be handled by the innings timer.

 

[Owzat]

I really don't see why this couldn't be handled by the innings timer.

as well as less than a minute they could probably also shorten the DRS timer nonsense, 15 seconds to decide if you want to review is unnecessarily long, 10 max.

the timer approach works well on speed snooker tournaments, they have like 10 seconds from the time the balls stop moving to play the next shot and I'd think this may be workable if done between balls as well as between overs. Problem is despite being a shorter format and trying to squeeze eg 100 overs into one day's play there isn't much obvious urgency, still played same kind of sedate pace as Tests.

 

[Owzat]

Most likely reaction is everyone rushes round for the 1st ball of the over and then has a big discussion straight after it.

not overly, excuse the pun, convinced it will make a lot of difference, a minute may not seem a long time out of context but imagine this were a day's Test cricket and you could spend EIGHTY NINE minutes between the 90 overs fiddling and faffing when the supposed sessions themselves combined are only supposed to last 360 ie is 1/4 of the day's play, just checked the 3h15m time and is 3h30m so :

max time to 50 bowl overs : 210 minutes
"stop clock" max time inbetween : 49 minutes

nearly 1/4, I rest my case, I suspect many overs won't take a minute to start but to also put in context if simply 2 hours a session, minus 5 minutes for ceremonial drinks then 345 minutes to bowl 90 overs and they believe sides with all the time wasting aside from drinks can bowl a ball every 40 seconds or so