Cricket rules: Some questions

My letter published by the daily “Dawn” today on 5 November, 2013.

Link:- http://dawn.com/news/1054254/cricket-rules-some-questions

Cricket rules: some questions

FROM THE NEWSPAPER

Share Email 0 Comment(s) Print
Published

2013-11-05 07:51:35

THE question before everyone, particularly the International Cricket Council (ICC) and match referee David Boon, is that whether the umpires changed the ball and granted five penalty runs to the Pakistani team, under the latest ICC Test match playing conditions coming into effect from Oct, 1, rule 42.1.1 or 42.1.2?

If rule 42.1.1 (quoted as below) was applied, then why didn’t the umpires allow the batsman at the wicket to choose the ball as per clearly specified law (a) and did the bowler’s-end umpire inform formally the captain of the batting side of what did occur as per (d) below?

a) Change the ball forthwith. The batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.

Additionally, the bowler’s end umpire shall:

b) Award five penalty runs to the batting side.

c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.

d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.

e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC match referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.

However, if rule 42.1.2, quoted as follows, was applied:

If it is not possible to identify the player(s) responsible: a) change the ball forthwith. The umpires shall choose the replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.

(b) The bowler’s end umpire shall issue the captain with a first and final warning, and (c) advise him that should there be any further incident by that team during the remainder of the match, steps 42.1.1 a to e above will be adopted, with the captain deemed under e) to be the player responsible.Why did the bowler’s end umpire not issue first and final warning as per 42.1.2 (b) to G.C Smith? And if the warning was issued to the South Africa captain, then why after the match AB de Villiers said the following on record, as reported by ESPN cricinfo, quoted as below:

“De Villiers said there was uncertainty as to what they were being penalised for: ‘I don’t even know where the message came from. There were no warnings, no talk of it. I still don’t know the facts’.”

As such, all the above mentioned facts must be cleared by the ICC and the match referee. It should also be explained that whether De Villiers was speaking a white lie, or did the elite ICC umpires, miserably failed in the performance of their duties as per law and gave undue advantages to the South African team at the expense of the Pakistani team?

S. NAYYAR UDDIN AHMAD
Lahore

Tags: My Views