ICC news May 11, 2011

ICC cricket committee calls for DRS in all Tests

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 79

The ICC's Cricket Committee unanimously recommended the use of the Decision Review System (DRS) in all Tests and also said it should be used in one-day internationals and Twenty20, but with just one failed review rather than two. It also encouraged cricket boards to use the pink ball in day-night first-class cricket to test its durability for the five-day game under lights and called for its trial in the Intercontinental Cup, involving Associate and Affiliate teams, later in the year.

The committee also proposed tweaks to enhance the ODI format, stricter penalties for over-rate offences and time wasting and even amending the law pertaining runners, suggesting they be done away with in international cricket, which an ICC spokesman confirmed to ESPNcricinfo was "under any circumstances".

These are, for the time being, just recommendations that will be tabled during the ICC's Chief Executives' Meeting in Hong Kong in June, where a decision will be taken on whether or not to ratify them.

The DRS system, a source of disagreement between several boards with its moments of controversy as well, was used for the entire duration of the 2011 World Cup where the committee agreed its application had been "successful". However, it still isn't used in all Test series with India continuing to argue against the system.

"The committee's recommendation that the DRS should be used in all formats of the game confirms two key conclusions that came from our discussions," Clive Lloyd, the committee's chairman, said. It shows the group's confidence in the system and it also highlights the committee's view that it does aid the umpires in making correct decisions."

Dave Richardson, the ICC's general manager of cricket, added that there was now even greater certainty over the accuracy of ball-tracking technology. "The level of believability in ball-tracking systems has improved," he said. "We are hoping the member boards, and we'll be frank the Indian cricket board, will follow suit and take cogniscance of that. We need consistency. It confuses the players and viewers if one series has DRS and the other not. Let us use it in every series possible."

Funding has been a major issue with the DRS with host boards and broadcasters left to pay bills but Richardson said that could change if it was used in all Tests. "I think if we get to a stage where all Full Members are happy to adopt the system for all Test series there would be the increased possibility that ICC could help fund the technology."

He added that the reduction to one failed review in ODIs and T20s would eliminate the 'hunch' that captains often use if they have spare reviews. If it proved successful Richardson said it could be considered for Test cricket, although the length of many innings means it's likely the system will remain at two failed requests.

The pink ball was trialled in Pakistan's first-class season earlier in the year, a practice the committee said should be embraced by other boards in at least one round of their respective four-day tournaments to go alongside the work done by MCC who have staged two matches in Abu Dhabi.

"The ICC remains determined to explore the possibility of day-night Test cricket but at the same time we have to ensure the integrity of that format is also protected," Richardson said. "The further trials proposed by the committee are a reflection of the fact we want to make sure that the pink ball is sufficiently durable to stand up to the rigours of first-class cricket."

There were a series of proposals made to make ODI cricket more appealing although the committee was "delighted" at the recent World Cup. They have suggested two balls be used in an innings, one from each end, as opposed to the current one which is changed at 34 overs for one of similar condition.

It also proposed that teams take the batting and bowling Powerplay between overs 16-40, and not after the 10th over, or following the 40th, as is usually the practice now to create more interest in the middle overs. Further to those, the committee called for experiments with newer ideas in domestic cricket, including removing restrictions for the maximum number of overs for a bowler, no compulsory close-catchers, number of bouncers allowed per over increased from one to two and a maximum of four fielders outside the 30-yard circles during the non-Powerplay overs.

Given the concern with poor over-rates, the committee proposed a captain in international cricket be suspended for one game if found guilty of two minor over-rate offences in the same format in a 12-month period, a harsher penalty than the one that currently exists where a captain is allowed three warnings.

Apart from doing away with runners, the committee, in a proposal that would prevent non-strikers from backing up too far, said bowlers be allowed to run them out provided they haven't completed their delivery swing. It also recommended an end to the practice of batsmen changing their direction while running between the wickets to obstruct the bowler or fielder's view while attempting a run-out which is often seen in one-day internationals.

Committee members Clive Lloyd, Sharad Pawar, Haroon Lorgat, Ian Bishop, Mark Taylor, Kumar Sangakkara, Tim May, Gary Kirsten, Clare Connor, Justin Vaughan, Trent Johnston, Ravi Shastri, Steve Davis, Ranjan Madugalle, David Kendix

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY riverlime on | May 14, 2011, 6:46 GMT

    I agree fully with the lifting of the 10 over restriction for bowlers. No one would expect that a team's best batsman would retire after 1 hour or 50 runs, so why demand that a team's best (and sometimes talismanic) bowler stop after a certain number of overs? As for injured players, they should either retire, or if they choose to have a runner then they are not allowed to play the next game. Colliding with, or blocking, another player should be HARSHLY penalised, and not taken as a joke. Dock the offending team 5 runs and you will soon see how rare it will become .

  • POSTED BY mightymf2000 on | May 13, 2011, 8:05 GMT

    Great job ICC comitte it's crazy India votes for it but they don't use it. What will the BCCI do next?

  • POSTED BY Psychopathetikka on | May 13, 2011, 3:48 GMT

    @Gerontius - I agree. Very good point. But what I'm saying is that in these times, when cricketers get paid rather well, fining them is pointless. A ban for a repeat offence does make sense, but it does not have any consequence on the match currently being played. There should be some method implemented where there will be some form of penalty on the bowling side, during the match itself, if the over rate slow.

  • POSTED BY cris89 on | May 12, 2011, 20:59 GMT

    ICC should think about the runners decision..Saeed Anwar scored the bulk of his 194 runs with a runner..and what about Laxman's superb 76 against Aus in Mohali..we wouldn't have had such a memorable test match without the runner..

  • POSTED BY Gerontius on | May 12, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    @Psychopathetikka: The problem with the run penalty for over rates was that it only affects the team bowling first.

    @Test_Cricket_Best_Cricket: "Let the captions decide and strategize the powerplays?" Captains are reluctant to innovate. Bowling powerplay is inevitably taken at the 11th over and Batting powerplay in the last 10.

    @D.V.C. : Pink ball may be hard to sight with coloured kits.

    @me54321: Run penalties would either be too harsh or not enough of a deterrent if a team has enough runs on the board.

    @Meety: Haha, yeah, really.

  • POSTED BY tahalateef on | May 12, 2011, 14:09 GMT

    Guys, who cares about the slow over rates? The broadcasters because they can't show enough ads to generate the revenue that they want !!! Where is cricket in all this. Perhaps the broadcasters should factor slow over rates in their bids to the ICC and the boards and the let captains and teams have that extra moment or two to think and strategize the game.

  • POSTED BY spinkingKK on | May 12, 2011, 13:40 GMT

    My suggestions: 1) A captain should be banned for life if the team's over rate is slow because all his bowlers were giving boundaries after boundaries and lost balls beacuse the batsmen hits the the ball out of the ground. 2) A non-striker should stay at the crease until the fielder throws the ball back to the wicket keeper or until when umpire calls "over". 3) The players should take care of themselves and therefore, injuries during the game is unacceptable. Therefore, they are not allowed runners and they are deemed to have made one run when they make two runs. 4) Also, to assist the captains who had no answers to an injured batsman's skill, any matches won with a significant contribution from an injured batsman is deemed to have been drawn. 5) DRS should be used in all the matches even if there is only one old camcoder available as assistance, because the system can eliminate bad umpires one by one and have just one umpire called Simon Taufel to do the job on all the matches.

  • POSTED BY thebeaker on | May 12, 2011, 13:02 GMT

    Rather than do away with runners (who are only used when a player is actually injured) why not clamp down on the substitute fielder rule that seems to be being abused these days, before anyone mentions the Ricky Ponting incident, I am english not Australian. When was the last time 'God' Sachin fielded for the whole 50 overs in a one day international, he bats then gets little Suresh Raina to go on and field for him. If your not fit enough to field you shouldn't be batting!

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 12:11 GMT

    It last they are going in the right direction and getting rid of the burden bowler have had. test one needs testing.

  • POSTED BY Flairboy80 on | May 12, 2011, 12:04 GMT

    Something outside cricket, ICC must consider some "Green" initiatives. Amount of energy required to light up the stadium for a 5-day game is enormous! Though the day-night games would be a great change, For a better tomorrow, ICC must not put the step forward on day-night test matches. Some food for thought folks...for our own better future

  • POSTED BY riverlime on | May 14, 2011, 6:46 GMT

    I agree fully with the lifting of the 10 over restriction for bowlers. No one would expect that a team's best batsman would retire after 1 hour or 50 runs, so why demand that a team's best (and sometimes talismanic) bowler stop after a certain number of overs? As for injured players, they should either retire, or if they choose to have a runner then they are not allowed to play the next game. Colliding with, or blocking, another player should be HARSHLY penalised, and not taken as a joke. Dock the offending team 5 runs and you will soon see how rare it will become .

  • POSTED BY mightymf2000 on | May 13, 2011, 8:05 GMT

    Great job ICC comitte it's crazy India votes for it but they don't use it. What will the BCCI do next?

  • POSTED BY Psychopathetikka on | May 13, 2011, 3:48 GMT

    @Gerontius - I agree. Very good point. But what I'm saying is that in these times, when cricketers get paid rather well, fining them is pointless. A ban for a repeat offence does make sense, but it does not have any consequence on the match currently being played. There should be some method implemented where there will be some form of penalty on the bowling side, during the match itself, if the over rate slow.

  • POSTED BY cris89 on | May 12, 2011, 20:59 GMT

    ICC should think about the runners decision..Saeed Anwar scored the bulk of his 194 runs with a runner..and what about Laxman's superb 76 against Aus in Mohali..we wouldn't have had such a memorable test match without the runner..

  • POSTED BY Gerontius on | May 12, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    @Psychopathetikka: The problem with the run penalty for over rates was that it only affects the team bowling first.

    @Test_Cricket_Best_Cricket: "Let the captions decide and strategize the powerplays?" Captains are reluctant to innovate. Bowling powerplay is inevitably taken at the 11th over and Batting powerplay in the last 10.

    @D.V.C. : Pink ball may be hard to sight with coloured kits.

    @me54321: Run penalties would either be too harsh or not enough of a deterrent if a team has enough runs on the board.

    @Meety: Haha, yeah, really.

  • POSTED BY tahalateef on | May 12, 2011, 14:09 GMT

    Guys, who cares about the slow over rates? The broadcasters because they can't show enough ads to generate the revenue that they want !!! Where is cricket in all this. Perhaps the broadcasters should factor slow over rates in their bids to the ICC and the boards and the let captains and teams have that extra moment or two to think and strategize the game.

  • POSTED BY spinkingKK on | May 12, 2011, 13:40 GMT

    My suggestions: 1) A captain should be banned for life if the team's over rate is slow because all his bowlers were giving boundaries after boundaries and lost balls beacuse the batsmen hits the the ball out of the ground. 2) A non-striker should stay at the crease until the fielder throws the ball back to the wicket keeper or until when umpire calls "over". 3) The players should take care of themselves and therefore, injuries during the game is unacceptable. Therefore, they are not allowed runners and they are deemed to have made one run when they make two runs. 4) Also, to assist the captains who had no answers to an injured batsman's skill, any matches won with a significant contribution from an injured batsman is deemed to have been drawn. 5) DRS should be used in all the matches even if there is only one old camcoder available as assistance, because the system can eliminate bad umpires one by one and have just one umpire called Simon Taufel to do the job on all the matches.

  • POSTED BY thebeaker on | May 12, 2011, 13:02 GMT

    Rather than do away with runners (who are only used when a player is actually injured) why not clamp down on the substitute fielder rule that seems to be being abused these days, before anyone mentions the Ricky Ponting incident, I am english not Australian. When was the last time 'God' Sachin fielded for the whole 50 overs in a one day international, he bats then gets little Suresh Raina to go on and field for him. If your not fit enough to field you shouldn't be batting!

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 12:11 GMT

    It last they are going in the right direction and getting rid of the burden bowler have had. test one needs testing.

  • POSTED BY Flairboy80 on | May 12, 2011, 12:04 GMT

    Something outside cricket, ICC must consider some "Green" initiatives. Amount of energy required to light up the stadium for a 5-day game is enormous! Though the day-night games would be a great change, For a better tomorrow, ICC must not put the step forward on day-night test matches. Some food for thought folks...for our own better future

  • POSTED BY tahalateef on | May 12, 2011, 11:57 GMT

    I was wondering is there no member from Pakistan in the ICC Cricket Committee? I could see representation from almost all test playing nations, including associates, however none from Pakistan.

  • POSTED BY Gizza on | May 12, 2011, 11:45 GMT

    Wow the ICC has made a great suggestion for once. Banning runners would be a step in the right direction. Like other comments have stated, bowlers can't use a runner when they get injured. It also encourages the batsmen to be fit, lose weight and doing proper warm-up stretches before the game. If a batsman has strong cramps they can always retire hurt. There's nothing wrong with that. If banning completely is too harsh, maybe they can get runners only after they retire hurt and the rest of the team is almost out (9 wickets down). They makes more sense but apart from that there is no excuse.

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 11:45 GMT

    I wish there was some regulation on the boundary size to be atleast 85 & 95 mts on square and straight respectively. That would have added some more twist to the game. The runner decision looks fair but keeping bowl for each end is kind of unfair for the bowlers. Maybe having many former and current batsman has impacted the batsman friendly decision.

  • POSTED BY Pandeyjii on | May 12, 2011, 10:35 GMT

    Had it not for the runner, nobody would have argued which is better innings . . . Sachin's 200 or Saeed Anwar's 196 ('cos Anwar would have not made even 196 without the runner)

  • POSTED BY muggsy9 on | May 12, 2011, 10:00 GMT

    My main problem with DRS is that other than in Australia (it might be in england but I haven't seen it) nobody has hotspot, which most of the time shows edges clearly. in other countries without hotspot the 3rd umpire isn't sure whether there is a nick or not and gives the benefit of the doubt. So unless all countries can adopt hotspot i think there is always going to be people against it.

  • POSTED BY King_Anish on | May 12, 2011, 9:14 GMT

    1.Doing away with the runners is a good decision. But a runner may be allowed once the team is 9 down. 2. Just like making UDRS mandatory, make the use of Floodlights mandatory to avoid 'Bad light stops play'. 3. If the ball pitches outside the line of the stumps and go on to hit the stumps, the batsman is out. Same should be for LBW decisions also.

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 8:31 GMT

    NO way should they bring back the "mankad" dismissal, no, no, no. When a batsman backs up too far they have a chance of being run out from the striking batsmans straight drive hitting the bowlers fingers onto the stumps. If the bowler feels the batsman is backing up too far he should abort his devlivery and get a dead ball, then ump should warn batsman not to get a huge start, but some backing up is needed otherwise this will take out 1/2 the quick singles .......

  • POSTED BY anshu.s on | May 12, 2011, 7:52 GMT

    WHAT about the use of 2 or 3 subsitutes per 50 over or 20 over game.This will end all the debate about 5 bowlers or 7 batsmen and give more flexibility to the teams....additionely keep all the squad members happy as they can be called upon to play anytime.

  • POSTED BY Psychopathetikka on | May 12, 2011, 7:49 GMT

    Regarding the over rate issue - I think that the earlier method of reducing the number of overs given to the side batting second if their over rate is slow is much better than a fine or a suspension. The reason I say this is because a fine or a suspension has no bearing on that particular match. For example, say a day-night match is being played and the dew factor becomes a problem late in the evening for the team fielding second. The other team could slow their over rate to make sure that when they bat, the dew will become a huge factor. In a situation like this the team batting second will still get an advantage in that match even if they get fined for doing it.. And nowadays when players are getting payed quite well, getting their match fee reduced is not a big deal.. Even in the WC Final India's over rate was pretty slow (check the match commentary - Over 44-45).. I'm not saying that it was done purposely, but it may have given an advantage to them..

  • POSTED BY Notredam on | May 12, 2011, 7:38 GMT

    Doing Away with runners is quite good.. 2 bouncers in and over is again great..and as for batting powerplay till 40 over is also fine... but as far as great fluctuation in game goes in batting powerplay i wud recommend to be resticted till 2nd new ball so till 30 over..then see the results..also..pink balls idea is scrap and wud not solve any purpose...as for 2015 world cup to have ten teams with qualification i wud say lets have 12 teams wth qualification procedure...qualification tournament shud be held in Aus , Nz or Eng,,

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    I think the move of removing the runner is fair one to the game. When a bowler is injured, no one else is running in for him .. so why give this privelege to a batsman. Moreover, it can also give a batsman more endurance by not running, if playing a long innings.. so this rule should be enforced. I think DRS is fair to the game, as it is only making umpiring better. but its good that the captains make fair use of it. Also the idea of two balls will effect the art of reverse swing, maybe they should start looking at balls that start swinging at 25 :)

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 7:20 GMT

    Then why to have review system at well. First of all why at the first place DRS was brought in? It was brought in to eliminate umpires error. If we are going to have only 1 review appeal, then that means you are eliminating only 1 umpire error from the game. That's stupid. That means only one umpire decision is erroneous and other decisions are fine. If you want to eliminate all the umpire errors with the help of DRS, then don't have Umpires at all or have them just to hold bowler's cap. Let the 3rd umpire (now the main umpire) use the DRS for all the deliveries, and whenever he sees batsman out or not out should inform the on-field umpire. If DRS was brought in eliminate obvious errors, like inside edge for LBWs, then let it be used for that purpose only, don't include HAWKEYES.

  • POSTED BY dsig3 on | May 12, 2011, 6:38 GMT

    Best idea I have heard in a long time concerning a runner. Cricket historically is a gentlemens game but nowadays that is rubbish. Banning runners takes out all the grey area and suspicion when someone calls for a runner. Batsmen have too many luxuries in the modern game. A rotund Sri Lankan would have averaged 10 less if this rule had been around in the 90's.

  • POSTED BY itisme on | May 12, 2011, 6:24 GMT

    I am very much in agreement about the proposal of powerplays. It is really absurd when a team takes batting powerplay during overs 45-50. This kills the whole purpose. This is utter non-sense. May be, instead of saying between 16-40, they can say that no powerplay overs can be allowed after 42 or 43 overs. The bowling sides most often take it between 10-15 so I donot think there will be a problem. But if in some extraordinary cases the bowling powerplay is delayed by the bowling side, then they must be forced to take it at over no. 33 or 34 if the batting powerplay has not been taken. In any case, they must not allow the non-sensical situation of a powerplay between 45-50 overs. Secondly, the DRS should be made manadatory for all without exceptions, big or small.

  • POSTED BY anikbrad on | May 12, 2011, 6:12 GMT

    THE POINTS THAT ARE OK: 1. THE PP BETWEEN 15-40 OVERS IS NOT GOOD AS THE POWER PLAY MUST BE FLEXIBLE. AND WHAT ABOUT FIELDING PP OPTIONS. 2. THE USE OF NIGHT TEST; GOOD BUT ONE MUST TRY IN SELECTIVE AREAS WHRE THERE IS NO DUE AND ALSO GIVE EACH COUNTRY 1-2 STEDIA AS COVERED ONE. WITH SO MUCH MONEY INDIA CAN BUILD ATLEAST 10 COVERED STEDIA 3. THE RUNNERS TO GO AYAY- GOOD IF THE PLAYERS ARE NOT HURT DURING THAT GAME, NOT FOR CRAMPS, TIEREDNESS, AND EVEN IF THE RUNNER IS ALLOWED THE RUNNER SHOULD BE IN THE HAND OF OPPOSITION CAPTAIN TO CHOOSE THE PLAYER LIKE IF TENDULKAR IS INJURED. U ALLOW THE RUNNER BUT NOT RAINA BUT NEHRA AS PER THE OPPSITION POINT AS HE IS POOR RUNNER. THIS WOULD BE GOOD. 4. I STILL FEEL THE RUNNERCAN BE MANKADED. IT WAS AGOOD RULE. 5. THE CHANGE OF BALLS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. THIS HAS BEEN DONE TO REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF PAK, IND,SRI ON REVERSE SWING-LIKE ZAK, MALINGA, GUL. IT GIVES UPPER HAND TO SPEED NOT SWING

  • POSTED BY cricketik on | May 12, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    Well experimentation with ODI format is welcome. But with DRS what are the steps ICC is contemplating to make the DRS foolproof. It is surprising that they ahve announced that DRS was successful. It proved how it is not totally foolproof and how ridiculous the 4 mtere rule etc.... Will ICC make it compulsory to use Hotspot technology compulsory??? Can ICC say the review of catches taken inches above ground can be confirmed using technology. It is a false notion that India is against DRS. Indians are against only because it is not fool proof totally as yet. Getting away with runners???? Absolute crap. Even now, a runner is allowed only if umpires and rival captain agree. Then why to get away with runners. Does not it encourage the bowlers and even fielders to hurt the batsmen. ICC wants to show taht they are the bossess and pitiably the committee comprises of good players like Gary, Ravi, Daddy, Kumar etal..... I think Sharad Pawar is in the committee in his capacityas Chaiman ICC.

  • POSTED BY ygkd on | May 12, 2011, 6:03 GMT

    I think Mankad should be rehabilitated! Bring him back - well, at least his run out option. And get rid of the deliberate obstructing the fielders' throw. And as for runners, haven't we all seen players at club level stretch the runner system credibility, when the fattest person in a batting side suddenly "pulls a hamstring" and a sprinter is already padded up and walks out before even being sent for.

  • POSTED BY Atit on | May 12, 2011, 5:41 GMT

    I think taking away runners is a good idea. The logic is simple you need to be fit enough to play out the overs by yourself. Too many batsman are now a days taking advantage of faking cramps to call on runners and conserve energy. This rule will make it an even playing ground for all

  • POSTED BY SaudSami on | May 12, 2011, 5:17 GMT

    10 Full ICC members 15 members in the committee Still No Pakistanis??

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 5:13 GMT

    The ICC's new rules are ruining the essence of the game!! The game is gonna get monotonous and funny on field antics will be missed if the non-strikers are not backing too much!! Why the hell do they do away with runners?? Anyways we have a MASTER in our side who can bat longer than anyone without runners!!

  • POSTED BY Rahul_78 on | May 12, 2011, 4:47 GMT

    Doing away with runners...Two thumbs up for ICC!

  • POSTED BY SRT_GENIUS on | May 12, 2011, 3:41 GMT

    @ Laurie Cook: I am with you - RUNNERS have been an integral part of cricket and removing them will take something away from the game. I think the theory is based on Steve Waugh's theory that runners unfair to an injured bowler (who can't get a runner). I don't understand it. Tomorrow batsmen will say that they want an opportunity to hit a bowler's head ? It's equiv of dumbing down the game till everyone is unhappy. Steve Waugh I respect you but you can't pull concepts of equality from society and try to apply them in the game.

  • POSTED BY Cricket_theBestGame on | May 12, 2011, 3:22 GMT

    some of these suggestions are good. but taking away runner?? what deh? do they expect inured batsman to carry on without running? also it means one batting team is disadvantaged. bad idea ICC!!!!

    DRS should be done away with. the player shouldn't be challenging umpire. the 3rd umpire should be watching each ball like he is in the middle and if a wrong decision is made, he should press a buzzer which is connected to onfield umpire's ears. the onfield umpire holds the batsman & 3rd umpire uphelds/rejects the decision using the techonology available now. sort of like now when umpire confirms for no ball.this is most fair to all parties inc umpires.

    ODIs should be changed from 50 over to 36 and called 36'rs !! here you go ICC i gave you a good marketing name. 36 overs a side will make more exciting cricket yet allow players to show their skills too. if 200+ can be scored in 20overs, then 36 overs can still yeild close to 300 runs. no need for powerplays etc.

  • POSTED BY Jan on | May 12, 2011, 3:11 GMT

    Two balls per innings?? Which means just 25 overs with a ball and which inturn paves way for destroying the art of reverse swing. This idea is the worst proposed in the meeting.Next worst is the idea of using powerplays between 16 and 40. If you bring such restrictions then whats the need of powerplay. Powerplays are generally taken as overs to score big especially when the ball gets old. So let it remain that way. And DRS is the best to happen for cricket from technology side but the investment seems to be huge if its employed for every game which is not feasible. So let it be used only for ICC events

  • POSTED BY kirankoushik86 on | May 12, 2011, 2:28 GMT

    batting and bowling Powerplay between overs 16-40 only? i think the next rule ICC comes up with will be that teams cannot score more than 8 r.p.o. during power plays..lol a couple of these proposed changes seem to have been put forth just to make it look like they are "thinking". even they will need some ideas on the table that can be dropped and agree on the rest to feel that the meeting was successful.. i dont think the above one and batsmen changing their direction while running between the wickets to obstruct the bowler rule will NOT be passed in the meeting.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | May 12, 2011, 1:43 GMT

    @Ravikant N - would of thought yellow would of been better! @Gerontius - fully agree with you, can't believe 2 smart releases from the ICC in one day! Thats their yearly quota!

  • POSTED BY clearhead on | May 12, 2011, 1:29 GMT

    I don't understand why, with what must be significant investment technology, the powers that be feel that it should be used grudgingly. If the intention is to improve the quality of decision-making, the it should be used to a reasonable degree. The reason for considering limiting to one review could not be in the interest of time as an inordinate amount of time is spent reviewing fours.

    My feeling is that the batting team should be allowed 2 and the fielding team three reviews. The advantage that a batsman has in requesting a review over the fielding team is obvious.

  • POSTED BY on | May 12, 2011, 0:39 GMT

    OK, I can follow their reasoning behind most of their decisions here even if I don't agree, but why get rid of runners? Is there any thinking behind this at all? It seems to me like the kind of minor adjustment as a decision for decisions sake that always clogs up this kind of bureaucratic mess.

  • POSTED BY Aashishk3 on | May 12, 2011, 0:11 GMT

    First of all- don't change the game at all becaz is it perfect the way it is..... if you put powerplays in 16-40 over then there is no use of cricket.... the 16-40 overs is where the real cricket comes out... picking the gaps and running the 1s and 2s.... This is where it is intersting...

    2nd of all- take out the DRS system... Its a waste of use.. none of the teams in the wrld cup had any use with the DRS... Most of them got them all wrong anyway... And cricket should be played without DRS so that it will get interesting..... yes but that might make the game unfair---but it is only unfair if the DRS is given to the bowling and not the batting side or vice versa.

    As per my view-- 50 over cricket is perfect the way it is( with out the DRS) and Test championship might not be bad afterall.. Please dont take out by-runners.... Sachin might be needing them very often!!!! GO SACHIN!

  • POSTED BY me54321 on | May 12, 2011, 0:08 GMT

    I've had an idea, that I doubt is original, but I've not read anybody else put it forward. How about making reviews unlimited, put giving runs as extras to the opposing team for failed reviews. Surely this would guarantee the stated no more howlers aim of the DRS, and at the same time would prevent teams going for strategic or doubtful reviews.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 23:52 GMT

    Fair play to the ICC Cricket Committe, I agree with all of their proposals. India has to embrace the DRS, 1 review per innings in ODIs and T20s makes more sense than having 2 as for tests (where an innings could last for anything up to around 200 overs), they don't seem to be rushing into playing day-night tests with a pink ball, and for one day cricket more overs per bowler (maybe 12), 2 bouncers an over and no compulsory catchers will all even the game up by more by being in the bowlers' favour, after years of rule changes which have made it too batsmen oriented (especially in one day games).

    Finally the proposal to allow bowlers to run out batsmen backing up too far corrects the bad rule change that they made 2 or 3 years ago.

    Together with the recommendation for a qualifying tournament for the 2015 World Cup (which i still hope will have 12 teams in it rather than just 10), this has been a good couple of days for the ICC Cricket Committee.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 23:17 GMT

    What about actually letting the 12th man take part in the match if one of the 11 gets injured during play. Cricket is the ONLY sport where the substitute can't take part completely in the match thereby giving the other team an unfair advantage

  • POSTED BY Balb on | May 11, 2011, 22:08 GMT

    I agree with Clive Lloyd and the committe about the DRS for all format of the game but here is my suggestion:

    For tests; The longer format of cricket that is played for up to five days should be five DRS per team or side. One innings can lasts up to two and a half days so it crucial to help the umpires with making right decisions.

    Fifty overs format should be two DRS per team or side.

    Twenty 20 should be only one DRS per team.

  • POSTED BY Robster1 on | May 11, 2011, 21:53 GMT

    Yes, can runners and why not move ODI's to the forty over format so instantly doing away with the dull middle overs.

  • POSTED BY D.V.C. on | May 11, 2011, 21:37 GMT

    There are some sensible measures here, at least for trial, though I must say that the banning of runners is coming as a shock. If anything I think that measure should be restricted to limited overs cricket. There is much more potential for injury over 5 days. Besides it rarely works out well for the batsman when they have a runner. One other thing I don't understand is why not use the pink ball for ODIs? If it is capable of lasting 80 or 90 overs, then it's use in the 50 over game would be preferable to using 2 balls. My suggestion for a tweak for limited overs games would be to allow a bowler an extra over for every wicket they take.

  • POSTED BY Test_Cricket_Best_Cricket on | May 11, 2011, 21:14 GMT

    2 Powerplays betn 16-40 !! Why have them at all use field restrctions for the full 50 overs.. Come'on man, Let the game be as it is... Let the captions decide and strategize the powerplays.. This world cup showed that the current format requires no tweaks.. Its pretty intersting.. ICC just make sure u have the right balance of cricket / year.. No overdose and Less one sided contests.. Nd pls someone talk abt the 2-tier system and test championship. It ll surely spice up test arena at the top as well as the bottom..

  • POSTED BY shillingsworth on | May 11, 2011, 19:39 GMT

    The common sense shown by the Committee shows what could be achieved if cricket was run by people who understood and respected it. The contrast between the ICC's Cricket Committee and its money obsessed Executive Board couldn't be sharper. Sadly it is the latter who wield the real power.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 19:28 GMT

    one failed review rather than two sounds stupid and will solve no purpose. Don't give captions a puzzle to solve when it comes to making the game fair.

  • POSTED BY Steven500 on | May 11, 2011, 19:20 GMT

    I cannot believe they have not addressed and change the rule that the umpire's decision is final when its in the yellow zone. For instance if the ball is hitting the wicket and Umps says not out it should be reversed. Also you must use sniko and hot spot in addition to hawkeye.

    Steven

  • POSTED BY shrastogi on | May 11, 2011, 19:19 GMT

    It doesnt make sense to confine DRS for LBW to two reviews per side. Just as no ball is checked for very dismissal Umpires should have the power to check for ball pitching out side leg stump and for the inside edges in case of any close LBWs. These reviews should be umpires referal and should be applicable even if a teams's review options are exhaustes. Batting side should be able to request the umpire to check for these two things in all the LBW decisions.

  • POSTED BY Cpt.Meanster on | May 11, 2011, 19:09 GMT

    I DON'T CARE what happens to test cricket cause I am not a fan of its longevity and boredom. However I do take notice whatever happens to T20 and ODIs. From that viewpoint I agree 100% with the ICC with regards to doing away with the runner. I always felt cramps, muscle aches shouldn't need ANY runner or substitute cause those are fitness related issues and if a player is prone to such problems then he shouldn't be playing high octane international cricket. Secondly, I also feel the ICC MUST cancel all international T20s. I feel T20 has a place ONLY in club cricket like the IPL, Big Bash. International cricket should be restricted to tests and 50 over games. I also feel the 50 over version needs to be reduced to 40 overs. It could create a lot more excitement and marketability. Lastly the FTP needs a BIG overhaul. The ICC is failing time and time again with regards to scheduling. PLEASE PLEASE respect the players and their personal lives. Please cut down the number of series per year.

  • POSTED BY Quazar on | May 11, 2011, 18:57 GMT

    I too favour only daytime Tests... forget pink balls, what about dew??? Nope... no need for drastic experimentation with Test cricket! DRS is fine... increased bouncers (2 or 3) in all forms of the game would be fine too. But on runners... the current system is perfectly fine where the umpires decide... surely you shouldn't remove runners "under all circumstances"... that'll be a massive injustice to a side that suffers a serious injury. And are they trying to completely kill reverse swing in ODIs??? 2 balls at the 2 ends will mean only 25 overs per ball... and so no reverse swing... as it is the 34th-over ball change has reduced the chances of reverse swing.

  • POSTED BY Kaushal_b on | May 11, 2011, 18:46 GMT

    Test cricket shouldn't be interfered with......we've had a pretty good 2-3 years of test cricket with plenty of results. I think the ICC should focus on having a minimum standard of test pitches instead. Draws are okay if the game's interesting, however, it is the very high scoring draws that get people to stop watching tests. The ICC should come up with a rule that if two consecutive tests at any particular venue fail to produce more than 30 wickets, the venue should be barred from hosting tests for the next 5-7 years. Such a rule will force the groundsmen to make more sporting wickets. Take for example, the recent Ind vs Aus test series in India; both the tests produced about 400-500 runs in the first team innings, but still ended up producing two cracking test matches....that's what everyone wants to see.

  • POSTED BY AsherCA on | May 11, 2011, 18:43 GMT

    If ICC is clear that DRS is the way to go, DRS can be made a mandatory requirement for ICC recognition of a series. The only requirement then would be to eliminate all grounds for disabling DRS. To prevent misuse to waste time, there should be a failed challenge penalty. Also - ICC should look to eliminate all grounds of discretion to ensure consistency. We did see during the WC that certain umpires chose to stand by what looked like an incorrect decision on grounds of the 2.5 meter rule on LBW challenges & some others chose to go the other way. When we see what looks like a pattern building up, it leaves sufficient circumstantial evidence to suspect bias / discrimination.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 18:36 GMT

    Pink balls a good idea to stop the stupid situation where lights on, but red ball gets lost in light shadow. So even when the light is brilliant - the players have to come off because the ball is the wrong flipping colour. Changing the colour of the ball is no big deal. It's only 40 years ago that some FC matches were still 8 ball overs, the "mankad" rule applied and the back foot no ball (and drag) rule was in place. Let's not get so "precious" about the last 20 years, things have always changed. As long as the core 5 days, 11 men, 2 innings stay in place then anything that means more cricket in a day rather than going off for a bad light cause ball is the wrong colour is a good thing.

    Get rid of runners. What other sport does a guy get to do the legwork for him? If he's injured he can hit boundaries, put up with it, or limp off. "Overmars will do the running, Beckham will take the free kicks"

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 18:03 GMT

    I like the idea of using different balls from either end. It gives the bowlers twice as many overs to attack with a hard new ball. At the same time, I wonder if this will take away the reverse swing factor.

    @cricket_DD: the batsman (striker / non-striker) coming in the way of a bowler or a throw from a fielder, can be charged with obstructing the field. I have always wondered why no one appeals at that.

    @Ravikant Narayan: They have been trying colours for years. I think yellow was an option. But the players that have played with coloured prefer pink. McGrath would approve.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 18:01 GMT

    I like the idea of using different balls from either end. It gives the bowlers twice as many overs to attack with a hard new ball. At the same time, I wonder if this will take away the reverse swing factor.

    @cricket_DD: the batsman (striker / non-striker) coming in the way of a bowler or a throw from a fielder, can be charged with obstructing the field. I have always wondered why no one appeals at that.

    @Ravikant Narayan: They have been trying colours for years. I think yellow was an option. But the players that have played with coloured prefer pink. McGrath would approve.

  • POSTED BY Deepfreezed on | May 11, 2011, 18:01 GMT

    why pink? should be yellow

  • POSTED BY Gerontius on | May 11, 2011, 17:56 GMT

    Wow, it's not often I say this, but WELL DONE ICC!

    Powerplays in the 16-40 over should change the pace of the game a bit, good improvement.

    Removing the restrictions for the maximum number of overs for a bowler is also brilliant. Anything so we don't have to see rollers and dibbly-dobblys for 20 overs.

    Bouncers rule I'd change to "One per batsman per over" rather than just "2 per over"

    I wish they'd do something more radical to improve the over rates. Still, a step in the right direction.

    "Apart from doing away with [...] one-day internationals. " Perfect! Finally some changes to try to bring a little balance back between bat and ball.

    Once again, ICC, I applaud you!

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 17:43 GMT

    Agree with rayinto. I'll stop watching if they alter my favourite format test cricket.Do whatever you want to with other formats..

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 17:32 GMT

    so many changes recommended in ODI! It may give the wrong impression that ODI cricket is in deep crisis

  • POSTED BY rayinto on | May 11, 2011, 17:19 GMT

    Test cricket has always been a 10 to 6 job. Dont mess with it and introduce day / night games, pink balls (or stipe uniforms) etc. Preserve test cricket for what it is - a 5 -day game of strategy. What's the rush! We already have 20/20 & 1-day for those with short attention span and have introduced day-night games to accomode their busy schedule. Please, leave test cricket as the old fashioned gentleman's sport it has always been. Experiment with the other formats, but leave test alone. Preserve it, not manipulate it!

  • POSTED BY cricket_DD on | May 11, 2011, 17:12 GMT

    I wonder how they would change the running bw wickets to obstruct the bowler (last line). But getting away with runner is a good idea, if you can not run dont bat.

  • POSTED BY wignarajah on | May 11, 2011, 17:10 GMT

    some thing new in cricket for the next years its a modern world so you need some sort of innavation . looking at the games prospect so many years the same thing repetaed so admire the new things comming up cricket becomes a rich game now 25 yrs ago game is only played test or odi but now T20 odi so good luck to icc.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 17:10 GMT

    Use red/white balls with two bouncers per over thats cool.Don't mess with test cricket ..

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 17:05 GMT

    why r they making a mess of odi cricket

  • POSTED BY IPSY on | May 11, 2011, 16:38 GMT

    Are they going into another year of international cricket with the run out rule still penalising fieldsmen for accurate throws, which after hitting the stumps sometimes ricochet and evade the back up fielders?. That is about the most ridiculous rule I know in any field of sports where accuracy is encouraged in any department of that sport!

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:25 GMT

    pink balls??!!!! what next???? orange battssss??????

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:24 GMT

    I Support the Decision that ICC called for the implementation of the Decision Review System (DRS) in all Tests.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:20 GMT

    WOW THAT IS GREAT FOR CRICKET

  • POSTED BY nikhilpuri on | May 11, 2011, 16:19 GMT

    How do you do away with runners?

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:18 GMT

    NO RUNNERS.......WHAT WILL LAXMAN DO.........LUCKY INZI,RANTUNGA ARE HAPPILY RETIRED

  • POSTED BY sanath007 on | May 11, 2011, 16:14 GMT

    UDRS in all tests. Finally. Good Decision. also good that they play a qualifier to the next WC. Yes pink is the only color that can work for night tests, so can't disagree with that either

  • POSTED BY Saim93 on | May 11, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    Night first class matches? For Shame...

  • POSTED BY Gerontius on | May 11, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    It's tough to see the red ball under lights. White ball gets discoloured within 30 overs. Different coloured balls were trialled and pink was found to be the best. It's not for fun that they are doing this.

  • POSTED BY KHALIDAMIN on | May 11, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    Right brother i am agree with you

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:07 GMT

    Can we also do away with the "not-lbw-if-pitched-out-of-leg-stump-line" in at least t20 and ODIs? Will give the bowlers something to play with.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 15:58 GMT

    pink balls really!couldn't find any other color?

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 15:53 GMT

    They don't have work just spending money on traveling dat's it.....wt da use of pink ball just earning money n makng meetings in UK HONGKONG DUBAI etc etc......

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 15:53 GMT

    They don't have work just spending money on traveling dat's it.....wt da use of pink ball just earning money n makng meetings in UK HONGKONG DUBAI etc etc......

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 15:58 GMT

    pink balls really!couldn't find any other color?

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:07 GMT

    Can we also do away with the "not-lbw-if-pitched-out-of-leg-stump-line" in at least t20 and ODIs? Will give the bowlers something to play with.

  • POSTED BY KHALIDAMIN on | May 11, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    Right brother i am agree with you

  • POSTED BY Gerontius on | May 11, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    It's tough to see the red ball under lights. White ball gets discoloured within 30 overs. Different coloured balls were trialled and pink was found to be the best. It's not for fun that they are doing this.

  • POSTED BY Saim93 on | May 11, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    Night first class matches? For Shame...

  • POSTED BY sanath007 on | May 11, 2011, 16:14 GMT

    UDRS in all tests. Finally. Good Decision. also good that they play a qualifier to the next WC. Yes pink is the only color that can work for night tests, so can't disagree with that either

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:18 GMT

    NO RUNNERS.......WHAT WILL LAXMAN DO.........LUCKY INZI,RANTUNGA ARE HAPPILY RETIRED

  • POSTED BY nikhilpuri on | May 11, 2011, 16:19 GMT

    How do you do away with runners?

  • POSTED BY on | May 11, 2011, 16:20 GMT

    WOW THAT IS GREAT FOR CRICKET