By Charles Randall
8 March 2013
The ICC are considering whether the Laws of cricket need amending to counter the production of monster bats that give batsmen an unfair advantage. This aspect is becoming noticeable in club cricket and remains a clear problem in the better-resourced professional game.
The ICC invited the MCC World Committee to discuss bats and a few Law issues at their recent meeting in Auckland, and the panel, chaired by Mike Brearley, made recommendations. They agreed that bat size, especially ultra-thick edges, needed to be investigated as there was a perception that the balance between bat and ball was being disrupted. As a result of their opinions the MCC agreed to carry out research during the 2013 English season.
The World Committee strongly supported the decision taken last week by the MCC to introduce a new Law making it a no-ball when the bowler breaks the wicket while delivering the ball. This, they said, was a sensible solution.
The Committee reaffirmed their support of the switch-hit on the back of considerable research by MCC into the shot and its potential repercussions. The difficulty and the high risk of playing the shot outweigh the need to legislate against it, either through banning it or amending the lbw Law when the shot is attempted.
Club cricketers might feel concerned at this 'populist' view of the switch hit, which is inherently unfair. To my mind, fields are set to a batting stance. The MCC do not seem to have noted that if a right-hander batsman is allowed to take his guard as a left-hander and switch to his normal stance on delivery, this tactic would not be 'cricket' however skilful the batsman might be. Bowlers are not permitted by the Laws to change their delivery side of the wicket without informing the umpire and batsman, who can then adjust his stance accordingly.
In relation to the ICC’s ban on runners, the committee felt that there was a risk of a player aggravating an injury by having to bat without a runner. As for substitute fielders, it was felt that this Law was still widely abused at international level. A Law change would not be necessary as the problem did not exist in the amateur game, but the committee felt that an ICC playing condition should be written stating that a substitute fielder should only be allowed in cases of serious injury or illness.
The Committee believed that the issue of corruption in cricket remained the biggest challenge facing the game today and, as such, this was the most important topic covered at the meeting. They were satisfied that ICC recognised that constant vigilance was essential and that the ICC was making efforts to encourage member boards to institute and strengthen anti-corruption forces of their own.
The committee felt that more needed to be done, having little doubt that there had been a displacement of effort by corruptors from international to domestic matches, including games played in Twenty20 leagues.
The Committee encouraged the ACSU and tournament organisers to make a concerted effort to scrutinise owners, selectors and administrators, and subject them to due diligence and – if necessary – investigation.
Intelligence from Indian bookmakers and punters needed to be harnessed, as did information from Betfair and other legal betting outlets. Software should be developed to monitor and assess probabilities of certain outcomes in the four areas of the game that attracted betting from illegal bookmakers – results, lunch and tea scores, brackets (specified periods of play) and end-of-innings scores.
The MCC reported the panel's anti-corruption views: "The players must be fully included in these efforts, through the domestic and international players’ associations, and must feel committed to reporting (with confidentiality assured) any irregularities and rumours. Captains are particularly vital in the fight against corruption; care should be taken to protect players from the attentions of dubious individuals at post-match parties; and education efforts must be redoubled, especially in local languages."
The World Committee strongly supported the Decision Review System. During the gathering Warren Brennan, managing director of BBG Sports (Hotspot), and Ian Taylor, chief executive of Animation Research Ltd (Virtual Eye), gave presentations of their respective technologies and how these were used in cricket. The Committee noted the remarkable speed of technological development in the game, with greatly improved cameras now in evidence, and the way their application had evolved since the inception of the Decision Review System.
"The Committee no longer thinks of the DRS in terms of eradicating the ‘howlers’ only," the MCC reported. "Technology used in today’s game often reveals things which the human eye cannot pick up on the field. The Committee feels that the DRS is good for protecting the integrity of the game, as it is statistically proven to increase the percentage of correct decisions in international cricket."
The Committee noted that the game as a whole was worse off when available technology was not used and they called for the universal application of ball tracking, hotspot and – subject to satisfactory trials – snickometer technologies. They believed that more training was required for third umpires, possibly to the extent whereby the ICC should consider the introduction of a cadre of third umpires who specialise in television decision reviews only.
The Committee believed there was a place for Twenty20, one-day international and Test cricket in the world game, but reaffirmed in particular support of the World Test Championship (WTC), planned to be introduced by the ICC in 2017 and to be held every four years.
The committee heard from David White, chief executive of New Zealand Cricket, who talked about the co-existence of the three forms of the game. He advocated the "3/3/3" model of playing three matches of each format on each tour, as currently being witnessed with England’s visit to New Zealand. In discussing the marketing of Test cricket, he added that a two-tier Test match championship – an idea involving promotion and relegation which has been raised in some parts – would be catastrophic for the long-form of the game in the nations outside the top four in the world.
The Committee appreciated that a great deal of effort may be needed to lobby for the inclusion of cricket in the Olympic Games of 2024. The Committee accepted that, were cricket to be played in the Olympics, there would be a short-term loss in income for the ICC therefore for dispersion to its members.
The MCC World Cricket Committee, established in 2006, aims to assist ICC while maintaining independence and giving thought to the main issues facing the international game, primarily from a cricketing point of view. Members are invited on to the unpaid panel primarily because of their continued close involvement in the game, for example, current Test cricketers and umpires, media broadcasters and journalists, and cricket administrators.
MCC World Cricket Committee
Mike Brearley (chairman)
Jimmy Adams
Mike Atherton
Geoffrey Boycott
Steve Bucknor
Martin Crowe
Rahul Dravid
Charlotte Edwards
Majid Khan
Anil Kumble
Rod Marsh
Shaun Pollock
Barry Richards
David Richardson
Kumar Sangakkara
Michael Vaughan
Steve Waugh