How the rapid evolution of T20 cricket should create a change in certain traditional cricket laws.

Regardless of the views many Almanac readers and writers have about the shortest form of the game of cricket, it is beyond doubt that it is a major financial contributor to the business of cricket that cannot be ignored.

Whether we like it or not, local and international games in Australia are drawing large crowds both in person and on TV. Further, the actions of the BCCI in planning a radical overhaul of international cricket, through the body that currently is charged with administering it, should show that the power rests in India, where the shortest form of the game is strong.

T20 is both a major source of revenue to world cricket, and a source of significant income to the players. As a result, it is fanciful to think that either group would want to see the product diminished or diluted.

The power and money that it generates cannot be underestimated.

However, if the game in this form is here to stay, is it reasonable that the traditional laws of cricket are in place for it? T20 is evolving at a rapid pace, tactically and strategically, and whilst it is tempting to see that the ‘close your eyes and slog’ form of planning is all that is involved, a quick listen to the commentary of Ricky Ponting, in particular, and Mike Hussey shows that there’s more to it than that.

With that in mind, there are, I’d argue, three laws of the game that I believe should initially be re-considered specifically for T20 cricket, as these laws haven’t kept up to date with how T20 is being played.

Catching – whilst T20 lends itself to hitting a six more than Tests or even ODIs, the shorter boundaries, multitude of grounds clambering to host matches (which may not be at Test or usual cricket standard or size) and heavier bats mean that hits over the boundary are becoming common place. Therefore, is it reasonable that as the fielding side has a smaller area to operate in, catches still have to be taken inside the rope?

I’d argue that if you shorten the ground continually, and make the boundary artificial rather than permanent, a catch taken inside the field of play, even if the player continues outside the field of play after catching it, should be considered. At the pace the ball is going, it doesn’t seem reasonable that a player with increasingly limited areas to work in should be restricted to having to be inside the rope for these dismissals. As long as both feet are inside the rope and on the ground (ie. the field of play) when the ball is deemed to be under control, even if the momentum takes a player over the rope, I would still advocate it being seen as a catch in T20.

Wides – a feature started in ODIs but becoming common in T20 is a batsman backing away from his stumps, usually towards square leg, to give himself space to play shots on the offside, including the reasonably common ‘inside-out’ shot over cover. However, any delivery that goes behind the batsman’s back is called a wide. I am glad to see that common sense has meant that a delivery that sees a player back away and miss a ball that goes between him and his leg stump isn’t called a wide, but with ramp shots, flicks to fine leg and batsmen moving around as the bowler is about to deliver happening a lot, is it fair that a delivery that barely shaves the leg stump and cleverly restricts the batsmen from playing a slog shot and reminds him to play off his hip, is called a wide?

More so, if a batsman moves when a bowler is about to deliver, and the bowler follows him by bowling down the leg side (or where he believes the batsman is moving towards), if the batsman then assumes a normal batting position, why does that ball become a wide? I would argue that a wide down the leg side should have nearly the same area to be considered legitimate or illegitimate as it does on the offside, and/or any delivery that still enables a batsmen to play a legitimate leg side shot, is a fair delivery.

LBW – this is more controversial and slightly more technical, but in short, a right handed batsman playing a switch hit (i.e. changing mid delivery or whilst the ball is coming towards him, and in theory becoming a left hander, as opposed to just playing a reverse sweep) should be for that ball considered by the umpire a left hander for the purposes of LBW appeals.

I have no issue with the batsman attempting something quite difficult facing a ball delivered at speed to give himself an advantage and exploit the field to suit himself. However, that cannot be done without any fear of potential reprisals if he mucks it up and is struck on the pad. If a right hander is becoming a left hander, mid delivery, then the consideration of an LBW appeal, and what constitutes pitching in or outside of the line, and where it would go after striking the batsman, must be reviewed. At present, apart from trying to get power into an unorthodox shot and the risks associated with playing it, the batsman has protection that I don’t believe he deserves. If he abrogates his right to be seen as a right hander (if he is) for a delivery, the law should treat him as a leftie for that delivery.

A counter argument has traditionally been that bowlers don’t nominate what they will bowl from one delivery to another, so why should a batsman nominate how he will bat. Fair enough. But bowlers have to nominate what hand they will bowl with and on what side. A batsman doesn’t have to nominate ahead what shot he’ll play or how, but if he switches, I believe he loses some rights in how he is seen for that delivery.

No doubt there are potentially other rules that could be applied to only the shorter form of the game that don’t impact Test or first-class cricket. Already, for example, the time a batsman has to get to the crease is much shorter in T20 than in Tests.

However, as T20 evolves, and people try to get an advantage over their opposition, the administrators of the game must also take into account the multitude of differences between Test and First Class cricket and T20 in making the decisions about the game itself.

About Sean Curtain

"He was born with a gift of laughter, and a sense that the world was mad". First line of 'Scaramouche' by Sabatini, always liked that.

Comments

  1. Sean – what you suggest is fair and logical. Therefore there is no chance of the ICC adopting it.
    Personally I prefer one bounce – one hand.
    You know it makes sense.

  2. Malcolm Ashwood says:

    Sean totally agree with all 3 of your suggestions pure common sense so as Peter B said above there 4 no chance of being implemented ( Re Catching the ball the rule you suggest is how it should be for all cricket )
    Sean can you Please take Kevin Bartletts place on the AFL rules commitee ?
    Thanks Sean

  3. Fair points, but would even argue with Mike Hussey re tactical input into T20 cricket.

    Re the LBW law proposed here, wouldn’t the only situation where this would apply be where the batsman switched and then was hit on the pad without playing a shot ? Seems unlikely, and even impossible to judge.

  4. Todd Allison says:

    I like your point about the LBW, but it doesn’t go far enough. Firstly, the rule should be simple – is a ball that hit the pads or body going to hit the stumps. If the answer is yes, then its out. None of this crap hit him outside off, pitched outside leg stuff. Makes the umpires jobs a helluva lot easier, too.

    Next, if a guy does switch hit, he should not longer be considered as a right or left hand batsman for wide purposes. Immediately after he has done that the bowler has the full arc between the lines to works with without fear of a wide.

    But the game (all forms) are dominated by batsman. This is amazing as the best matches are usually the low scoring thrillers.

  5. Luke Reynolds says:

    Great work Sean, these should be adopted for all forms, not just T20. Common sense and easily interperated rules.

  6. The AFL could learn a bit from those marketing geniuses at CA. Put your tournament on hold for a few weeks while “Who Cares” plays “Gave Up Long Ago”. Then send all your best players off on a post season trip to Vegas or Centurion Park or wherever, so that they are missing for the finals.
    They’ll get more people at a NAB Cup games between the Bulldogs and the Demons than the BBL managed to draw.
    Why do we bother – if Australia sent Pomborneit and Kate’s sons team to play in the Champions League – they would get the same TV ratings in India as the Hurricanes or the Scorchers. And that’s all that matters.
    Over it.

  7. Julian Collins says:

    Sean,
    May I suggest a few of my own. I think there should be another boundary in the crowd which has the value of 8 runs.
    I also think that fielders should be restricted to small zones in which they must start in up until to the release of the ball.
    Perhaps the stumps should be reduced from three to one!
    I think turf wickets should be replaced with concrete ones.
    i think the bowler should be replaced by a bowling machine.
    Each team should have a batting side consisting of eleven players and fielding team of eleven players.

  8. E.regnans says:

    Good call, Sean.
    Usually I’m happiest with traditional rules and the absence of tinkering (e.g. stability of the rules of Soccer as opposed to those overseen by the AFL rules committee).
    But you make good points above.
    And T20 is a different game.
    Do you think any changes are warranted to Test cricket?

  9. E R

    Thanks

    As to Test rules, I’d want to see the catching rule there, as the boundary ropes are short in that form of the game. More controversial would be removing leg byes altogether, as I think they are unfair to the bowling team.

    Agree on the tinkering. i have a limited knowledge of soccer but except for the backpass to teh keeper change, I can’t think of many other major changes to laws.

    Hockey is a great example of a sport which has changed rules, but unlike AFL, for the better and for player safety. The intro of no offside and play on in recent years has only made the game better and more exciting

    Sean

  10. Malcolm Ashwood says:

    Sean a Runs penalty re each over not bowled in the 6 hrs Play ( not Inc the 30 min add-on ) in Test cricket teams would actually get on with it and I bet it would never have to be implemented

Add Comment Register

Leave a Comment

*