ICC news September 30, 2011

Powerplay tweaks and end of runners

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 59

West Indies' tour of Bangladesh, which begins with a Twenty20 on October 11, will be the first international series under the ICC's revised playing conditions, which are effective from October 1. The amendments are only applicable to international cricket.

The ICC's cricket committee had made the recommendations after its meeting in London in May and they were passed by the executive board at the annual general meeting in Hong Kong in June.

Powerplays (ODIs only)
In a full ODI, the teams can take the bowling and batting Powerplays (five overs each) at the start of an over after 15 overs of an innings have been bowled. They must complete the Powerplays by the 40th over, which means the last block of fielding restrictions must begin in the 36th over. The first ten overs will comprise the mandatory Powerplay. This condition will not apply to innings reduced to fewer than 40 overs.

Under the previous playing conditions, teams were allowed to take the bowling and batting Powerplays at any time after the completion of the tenth over of the innings.

Runners (All formats)
A batsman will not be allowed a runner under any circumstances. The batsman can retire hurt and return to bat at a later stage in the innings.

Two new balls per innings (ODIs only)
Each fielding team will be given two new balls to be used in alternate overs, one at each end. The mandatory change of the ball after the 34th over of an innings will not take place anymore.

Obstructing the field (All formats)
If a fielding team appeals and the umpire feels the batsman has significantly changed his direction without probable cause, while running between the wickets, and obstructed an attempt to run him out, the umpire can give the batsman out for obstructing the field. It is not relevant whether a run out would have been affected or not. The on-field umpires are allowed to consult the third umpire in making the decision. The other circumstances in which a batsman can be out obstructing the field are still applicable.

Penalty time (All formats)
This amendment refers to the calculation of the time for which a player cannot bat or bowl because he or she was off the field.

If a player, who still has some unexpired penalty time remaining from a previous absence, is on the field when play is interrupted by bad weather, light or other reasons, the duration of the stoppage will be deducted from the remaining penalty time.

Bowler attempting to run out a non-striker before delivery (All formats)
Previously, the bowler could run out a non-striker backing up only if he did so before entering his delivery stride. This meant that as the bowler's back foot landed, the non-striker could move down the pitch before the bowler delivered the ball.

According to a new playing condition, 42.11, "The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal dead ball as soon as possible."

The umpires shall deem the bowler to have completed his delivery swing once his bowling arm passes the normal point of ball release.

Extra time to complete a match (Tests only)
According to clause 16.2.2 of the Test match playing conditions: "The umpires may decide to play 15 minutes (a minimum of four overs) extra time at the scheduled lunch or tea interval of any day if requested by either captain if, in the umpires' opinion, it would bring about a definite result in that session. If the umpires do not believe a result can be achieved no extra time shall be allowed.

"If it is decided to play such extra time, the whole period shall be played out even though the possibility of finishing the match may have disappeared before the full period has expired.

"Only the actual amount of playing time up to the maximum 15 minutes extra time by which play is extended on any day shall be deducted from the total number of hours of play remaining, and the following session of play shall be reduced by the amount of time by which play was previously extended under this clause."

Delay of lunch interval when nine wickets down (Tests only)
If a team is nine wickets down at the time of the lunch interval, the break will be delayed by a maximum of 30 minutes. Previously, only tea was delay-able, while lunch was taken even if a team was nine down.

Duration of interval between innings (ODIs only)
The minimum interval for an uninterrupted ODI match has been increased from 20 minutes to 30 minutes.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • AsherCA on October 2, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    Banning runners is fair on grounds of the fact that a batsman with runner would be entitled to stand & bat, without needing to do the supplementary running whereas there is no similar break for a bowler - even injured / unfit bowlers are not allowed to bowl & go back off the field between overs. I understand the injury concerns of a lot of my friends blogging here, but the solution probably is to have both captains announce a 12 / 13 member side, any 11 of whom can participate in the match at any time. Batting sides' innings should close at the fall of the 10th wicket. This would bring Cricket with longer durations at par with Soccer, Hockey etc. which allow for substitutions at the team's discretion.

  • Charindra on October 2, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    Funny that there's a picture of Sri Lankans in a discussion of runners... Would have been even better if the picture was Arjuna Ranatunga. What a character he was!

  • on October 2, 2011, 6:56 GMT

    Two new balls rule could definitely be an advantage to those spinners who rely on bounce as their major weapon. I dont think it will harm the spinners that much. In T20 also, if they are not bowling in first powerplay they are bowling with a bowl which is 6 overs old and many spinners like Swann, Ashwin and Ajmal have been quite effective with the new ball. Although this rule will definitely affect those who rely on reverse swing

  • on October 2, 2011, 6:26 GMT

    Why insist on those batting and bowling powerplays? It's becoming a bit of a joke now. Let's just go back to days of fixed 15 overs of powerplay.

  • on October 2, 2011, 5:15 GMT

    @sweetspot...impressed by what u said......but sorry to say that we indians don't have 10 bowlers..lolzz

  • tearawayquick on October 2, 2011, 0:49 GMT

    Its ridiculuos to not allow runners..especially during the summer months in India.. no matter how fit you are players will cramp up.. and hence should not be robbed of the chance to bat...So many great innings have been played by batsmen who have had runners.. likes of greenidge, Anwar and Hayden come to my mind... Hope this rule is ratified.

  • CricFan78 on October 2, 2011, 0:31 GMT

    After getting rid of reverse swing and spinners in ODIs does anyone still believe that BCCI runs ICC? ECB has once again changed got ICC to change rules to suit English team.

  • on October 1, 2011, 21:21 GMT

    ah, this will cut the reverse swing and the effectiveness of spinners. it will become even more batsman friendly (if it is any less at the moment)ah, this will cut the reverse swing and the effectiveness of spinners. it will become even more batsman friendly (if it is any less at the moment)

  • on October 1, 2011, 21:07 GMT

    veyr very impressive ICC. i really liked all the rules, specialy Two New Balls. this also happened in 1992 world cup

  • on October 1, 2011, 19:06 GMT

    I think these rules would force changes in Dhoni's captaincy. Previously, spinners were most effective from overs 25-34. Now they have to wait for the end of the game to go out and try their skills. Also, bowlers well-versed in reverse swing like Zaheer Khan was very effective in overs 28-34. Dhoni had settled on using the power plays after the 42 over ....Ball maintainers like Alaistar Cook will become really busy ....Scores in the subcontinent will be higher will the two new balls.

  • AsherCA on October 2, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    Banning runners is fair on grounds of the fact that a batsman with runner would be entitled to stand & bat, without needing to do the supplementary running whereas there is no similar break for a bowler - even injured / unfit bowlers are not allowed to bowl & go back off the field between overs. I understand the injury concerns of a lot of my friends blogging here, but the solution probably is to have both captains announce a 12 / 13 member side, any 11 of whom can participate in the match at any time. Batting sides' innings should close at the fall of the 10th wicket. This would bring Cricket with longer durations at par with Soccer, Hockey etc. which allow for substitutions at the team's discretion.

  • Charindra on October 2, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    Funny that there's a picture of Sri Lankans in a discussion of runners... Would have been even better if the picture was Arjuna Ranatunga. What a character he was!

  • on October 2, 2011, 6:56 GMT

    Two new balls rule could definitely be an advantage to those spinners who rely on bounce as their major weapon. I dont think it will harm the spinners that much. In T20 also, if they are not bowling in first powerplay they are bowling with a bowl which is 6 overs old and many spinners like Swann, Ashwin and Ajmal have been quite effective with the new ball. Although this rule will definitely affect those who rely on reverse swing

  • on October 2, 2011, 6:26 GMT

    Why insist on those batting and bowling powerplays? It's becoming a bit of a joke now. Let's just go back to days of fixed 15 overs of powerplay.

  • on October 2, 2011, 5:15 GMT

    @sweetspot...impressed by what u said......but sorry to say that we indians don't have 10 bowlers..lolzz

  • tearawayquick on October 2, 2011, 0:49 GMT

    Its ridiculuos to not allow runners..especially during the summer months in India.. no matter how fit you are players will cramp up.. and hence should not be robbed of the chance to bat...So many great innings have been played by batsmen who have had runners.. likes of greenidge, Anwar and Hayden come to my mind... Hope this rule is ratified.

  • CricFan78 on October 2, 2011, 0:31 GMT

    After getting rid of reverse swing and spinners in ODIs does anyone still believe that BCCI runs ICC? ECB has once again changed got ICC to change rules to suit English team.

  • on October 1, 2011, 21:21 GMT

    ah, this will cut the reverse swing and the effectiveness of spinners. it will become even more batsman friendly (if it is any less at the moment)ah, this will cut the reverse swing and the effectiveness of spinners. it will become even more batsman friendly (if it is any less at the moment)

  • on October 1, 2011, 21:07 GMT

    veyr very impressive ICC. i really liked all the rules, specialy Two New Balls. this also happened in 1992 world cup

  • on October 1, 2011, 19:06 GMT

    I think these rules would force changes in Dhoni's captaincy. Previously, spinners were most effective from overs 25-34. Now they have to wait for the end of the game to go out and try their skills. Also, bowlers well-versed in reverse swing like Zaheer Khan was very effective in overs 28-34. Dhoni had settled on using the power plays after the 42 over ....Ball maintainers like Alaistar Cook will become really busy ....Scores in the subcontinent will be higher will the two new balls.

  • on October 1, 2011, 18:41 GMT

    ICC Shud also think abt time between inning break in test match, they shud not reduce no. of overs from the over of day as these breaks are mandatery.

  • on October 1, 2011, 18:34 GMT

    Banning a runner for injured batsman is a harsh decision. ICC should reconsider it. And let umpire take decision(as was done earlier)depending upon the gravity of the situation. Wht if a fielder injured himself in field or a batsman /bowler slipped while taking run/bowling?

  • on October 1, 2011, 18:17 GMT

    congrats ICC.. you have succeeded in making the simple game more complicated... i hope their next target is not to spoil the test cricket...

  • on October 1, 2011, 16:16 GMT

    THE MIDDLE BORING OVERS HAVE BEEN ADRESSED QUITE WELL. ALSO DEFENDING TOTALS WOULD BECOME EASIER.

  • sweetspot on October 1, 2011, 15:10 GMT

    If we are really serious about making this game more interesting, we need to change the most fundamental equation between bat and ball and keep that relationship intense. How do we do it? Allow 21 players a side, so that ten best bowlers can bowl at ten best batsmen, but only 10 wickets to get. Each bowler can still bowl a maximum of ten overs. This way, batsmen will go aggressively knowing there are genuine batsmen to follow even if they are 7 down, and there is no need to worry about any weak bowlers going to get taken to the cleaners. Intense 50 overs a side, without all these kindergarten tricks to juice up boring periods.

  • on October 1, 2011, 13:10 GMT

    New Rules OF international cricket

  • BULTY on October 1, 2011, 13:00 GMT

    New rules proposed by ICC have come into existence as of today. While some are good, others definitely need reconsideration. First, use of two white balls in ODI is nothing new. It was there when ODIs started, it has only made a comeback. This is necessary because very often it is seen that white ball loses shape colour and becomes difficult to handle in dewy conditions. As for runners banned in all forms of cricket is definitely harsh & meaningness. Take for example, a fielder fielding in close-in position get badly hurt on leg by a shot from batsman as it happened to Gambhir in recent test match with England. Allowing/disallowing a runner should definitely be on a case to case basis and should not be generalised. ICC could have thought of making a bowling side complete 30 overs per session in a Test match scenario & duration of day's play arrived at considering average time taken to complete an over. Present system is meaningless & obsolete. No team completes 15 overs in 1 hr anytime

  • ian_ghose on October 1, 2011, 12:59 GMT

    @kunushah23 - How does it matter who goes first? Since there will have to be 10 consecutive overs of powerplays to be done with and since both the bowling and batting powerplays have the exact same rules (upto 3 allowed outside the circle), it really doesn't matter what comes first. In essence both are exactly the same, no matter whether you call it a batting power-play or a bowling power-play.

  • UNIVERSAL_CRICKETER on October 1, 2011, 12:31 GMT

    What if a fielder or bowler deliberately collides with or make the batsman fall injuring him.......or if a player gets injured while fielding........ will the batsman be denied the runner????............2 new balls is against the interest of India/ Sri Lanka/ Pakistan which rely heavily on spinners and also discouragement for new spinners............. Bowlers should always be allowed to run out non-strikers if they leave the crease before the bowlers actually delivers the ball....what this mumbo-jumbo about delivery swing....just childish fancy like the 15 degree elbow rule..............

  • on October 1, 2011, 12:28 GMT

    @Jimmy Hughes: Dude..you have gone crazy..if possible Indian teams would ask for a 50 over old ball from the start..they bank on spin and reverse swing...clearly it is against the Indian style of bowling...there is no reason why such stupid rule would/could have been asked by the Indians...

  • UNIVERSAL_CRICKETER on October 1, 2011, 12:28 GMT

    What if a fielder or bowler deliberately collides with or make the batsman fall injuring him.......or if a player gets injured while fielding........ will the batsman be denied the runner????............2 new balls is against the interest of India/ Sri Lanka/ Pakistan which rely heavily on spinners and also discouragement for new spinners............. Bowlers should always be allowed to run out non-strikers if they leave the crease before the bowlers actually delivers the ball....what this mumbo-jumbo about delivery swing....just childish fancy like the 15 degree elbow rule..............

  • Stark62 on October 1, 2011, 10:23 GMT

    @ D.V.C

    Are you crazy?!?!

    The only reason teams start with a spinner in T20's is because players look to make a quick fiery start but spinners flight the ball and that means the batsmen have to be careful. Gul got reverse swing in T20's because the ball is constantly bashed around which, brings about the wear and tear much quicker.

    There is no excuse for this stupid 2 new balls rule!

  • on October 1, 2011, 10:18 GMT

    that 2 new balls at either ends and obstucting the field rule must ave been discovered by indians involved in the icc coz they all seem pointless to me.appreciate the runners end n delaying of lunch if a team is 9 down n all but honeslty i don't think any changes were required in the game.Now they'll be more controversies and more disaggrements from everywhere,these chaps are making this simple game more n more complicated !

  • on October 1, 2011, 10:04 GMT

    that two new balls at either ends n obstructing the field rule seem all pointless to me,appreciate the no runner enforcement and delaying lunch n all,but honestly i don think these changes were required anyway,now there'll be more controversies n more dissapprovements from everywhere,they're making simple game more n more comlicated to understand ! that two new balls at either ends n obstructing the field rule seem all pointless to me,appreciate the no runner enforcement and delaying lunch n all,but honestly i don think these changes were required anyway,now there'll be more controversies n more dissapprovements from everywhere,they're making simple game more n more comlicated to understand !

  • on October 1, 2011, 9:53 GMT

    The 2 ball rules will help the batsman a lot and we can see lots of scores over 400. This rule basically negate the reverse swing options as well very rarely the ball will spin within 25 overs. And all the team will always encourage to play with 3 fast bowlers. Another rule favoring the batsman..

  • loveNpeace on October 1, 2011, 9:46 GMT

    too many changes for the game of cricket in the last 5 years or so. its so complicate now and this new rules killing the spirit of cricket.ICC can be a PVT LTD company from now on and sell all assets of cricket and get rich. "CRICKET WONT BE CRICKET ANY MORE" R.I.P LOVELY CRICKET

  • muh189 on October 1, 2011, 9:20 GMT

    the runners rule seems to be a bit too harsh. just a consider a scenario when a team is nine wickets down and the match could have changed drastically (like the malinga-matthews partnership vs Australia) and u need a runner, its too unfair, their should have been a limited restriction for batsman getting runners.

  • on October 1, 2011, 8:24 GMT

    The obstricting the field and the 'mankad' rules are stupid and are going to make the game more complicated then it needs to be, i am not upset to see the end of runners because the right of getting a runner was often abused...also the amount of comical run outs that happened from runners is another thing that is not needed in the game.

  • Fakh_36 on October 1, 2011, 8:24 GMT

    the 2 new ball rule as well as the power play option are welcomed, for some of my friends thinking that the new ball can be used any time of the inning, The rules are to use new ball from each end, means both ends bowler will have their own different new ball. good to see.

  • Cricketer2010 on October 1, 2011, 6:06 GMT

    there is no option of using the balls ...the rule is mandatory......one ball from each end.......to counter the reverse swing and spinners.........Why Asian teams did not opposed the idea

  • on October 1, 2011, 6:05 GMT

    Using two new balls in an innings will surely benefit the pace heavy teams like Australia, South Africa, West Indies, England. Where as teams like India and Sri Lanka might be depressed with this decision. I am really happy for ICC to cheer something for bowlers.

  • on October 1, 2011, 5:51 GMT

    All these rules are good in some aspects and bad in other ways. Powerplay overs should have restricted between 15 to 45 instead of 15 to 40 overs. Not allowing by-runner is good idea but obstructing the runout throws will bring more controversies. Allowing the bowler to run out non striker also very good.

  • AJGWST on October 1, 2011, 5:50 GMT

    good changes, but... the batsmen obstructing a throw should be allowed because that is what cricket is about... for the batsmen not getting out and obstructing a throw from a fielder is one way of doing that, where as if the rule continues to be implied then a slip or a fall or an obstruction by the bowler, the batsmen should not be given out, and the bowler should be fined... a bowler is supposed to move off the pitch once the delivery is bowled. Also then if these two or even just one of the laws are implied then, the batsmen should be penalised (given out) as before during the run, if he has entered the crease but no part of his body is touching the ground behind the crease, say he is running and the bails are taken of after he is in the crease, but his legs are both up in the air, and the bat is not grounded therefore none of his body or bat is touching the ground he should be given out. Then after the ball has passed the batsmen to the keeper, the ball time out should be 5 secs.

  • D.V.C. on October 1, 2011, 5:06 GMT

    @AidanFX: I think it's a good change, and in fact harks back to the original intention of the dismissal, which was to stop batsman moving toward the ball (often to strike it again). It's not hard to abide by, simply don't change direction or weave just to block the stumps or interfere with the fielder. There should be more batsman given out in this way as a result of this change (which is good because usually they are only swerving to avoid being run out). @Stark62 & orangizer: This used to be done 10 years ago, and it worked fine then. Spinners are opening the bowling in T20s now and being effective, so the new condition of the ball shouldn't be a problem for them. I also seem to remember Gul getting reverse swing in T20 games. This is actually better because the work you put on the ball isn't negated by the compulsory ball change at 35 overs.

  • kunushah23 on October 1, 2011, 4:55 GMT

    so what happens when both teams havent taken their powerplays by the 30th over? who has to go first?

  • on October 1, 2011, 4:00 GMT

    I think fielding teams should be given two balls at the start of the game and they should be allowed to use it freely. Else, the role of spinners and reverse swingers can be relegated with this new rule. administrators need to act quick and prohetically!

  • AidanFX on October 1, 2011, 1:44 GMT

    Obstructing the field (All formats)... Gee I can see this rule amendment opening Pandora's Box and the aftermath having debates in media and cricket fans about particularly cases this rule is exercised in a game. Any thought guys?

  • igorolman on September 30, 2011, 21:53 GMT

    @ D.S.A - you're allowed back on whenever the umpire allows you (even in the middle of an over, since 2000). However, you're not allowed to bowl until you've been back on the pitch as long as you've been off (if >15 minutes). What this means now is, if you're off for an hour, come back for 15 minutes (during which time you can't bowl), then it rains for more than 45 minutes, when you restart play you could bowl immediately. Ditto for batting in the top 6. Might see a few batsmen with dodgy fingers rushed out to fine leg when there's rain about and the opposition are 8 or 9 down?

  • oranjizer on September 30, 2011, 21:22 GMT

    ODI cricket is most boring between the 20 to 40 overs period. The new power-play rule is wonderful as it makes the most boring period interesting thus will help renew ODI cricket. The only side effect this rule may have is that teams may push to up the rate during 36-40 overs and lose too many wickets which leaves the tail-enders to play out the remaining overs, or ends the game early. The positives are that it spices up the 15-25 over period if bowling team chooses to take powerplay and the 36-40 over period of batting powerplay. If the bowling team takes the PP only at 31st over interesting to see how things move. Long live ODI. I WELCOME this move.

  • oranjizer on September 30, 2011, 21:15 GMT

    The no runner rule is fantastic as it pushes players to remain fit and players cannot fake but otherwise a new batsman coming in will open up opportunities for the bowling side.

  • oranjizer on September 30, 2011, 21:10 GMT

    All those who feel that the 2 ball rule will affect spinners, are correct only if it is mandatory to use the other ball every alternate over, if so, IT IS RIDICULOUS. I HOPE they say that bowling teams will be given 2 new balls but can use them when ever they want (of course cannot change at the middle of an over). This will allow teams that have good pace attack the option to continue for longer time and teams good at spin wont bother to use the other ball till they feel to do so or ball is too old, this should be fair enough.

  • on September 30, 2011, 20:29 GMT

    i am happy with all the rules except 1, i.e. the idea of 2 new balls from each end. Are you kidding me? No real spin and no reverse swing. Asian teams, RIP.

  • St.as.ram.rod on September 30, 2011, 19:38 GMT

    I see lot of players have issues with No Runner Rule - According to me it's about time that this rule came in as in last few years we have seen controversies over allowing runner or not. This will make sure there is no discrepancies.

    Changes are required for evolving the game which is losing interest specially being such a lengthy duration event. These new rules are worth taking risks... What I liked about the few of these rules is that it is giving level ground for bowlers again. And will make the role of captains interesting. There will be now more cases where Media will eat out poor captains...

  • Stark62 on September 30, 2011, 19:36 GMT

    The stupidest rule to ever be created in cricket is having 2 new balls at each end!

    Did they ever think about spinners and reverse swing?!?!

    Both these make cricket what it is today.

    This will heavily favour sides who are rubbish at playing spin and don't know the art of reverse swing plus, teams that never produce quality spinners.

    I've got a better idea, why not scrap ODI's!!!!

  • on September 30, 2011, 19:24 GMT

    i like the no runner rule, but there shouldn't be substituting fielder also.

  • on September 30, 2011, 18:37 GMT

    runout one clause is ridiculous. Many player won't be able to understand this thing and it can create some controversey.

    using powerplay before 40 over is good one..

  • gazelle79 on September 30, 2011, 18:06 GMT

    @Anurag_India , the sentence says "uninterrupted " . Obviously , this rule applies only if 3.5 hours of cricket ( first innings ) has already taken place , so the break of 30 minutes isn't such a bad thing . Besides you can't anticipate rain always . @Azaan Ali , the decision need not be subjective . He can always ask the third umpire . As it is , an umpire who makes wrong decisions may as well have a low umpiring life span .

  • D.S.A on September 30, 2011, 18:06 GMT

    Can someone explain the penalty time rule...the second sentence appears to imply that a player who has been off the field for a period of time could be allowed on the field (which I thought couldn't occur) and then if rains occurs, then the length of time that the player was initially off the field is subtracted by the length of the stoppage, which doesn't make sense to me, so I'm misinterpreting this.

  • crikketfan on September 30, 2011, 17:55 GMT

    It's all change for changes sake. Why can't the ICC just STOP MEDDLING for a bit???

    Most of these changes aren't remotely necessary (eg. rule on runners, obstruction) and are generally solutions to non-existent problems. The sort of regulations that inevitably emerge from talking shops under pressure to produce justification for their talking. Indeed runners (especially when there's two of them!) are the sort of thing that add to spectator enjoyment! The two new ball and powerplay changes seem designed to put spinners back in their place - obviously been too successful recently.

  • on September 30, 2011, 16:57 GMT

    only the run-out issue may create controversy at pressure situations

  • dr_zzzzz on September 30, 2011, 16:32 GMT

    Endless tinkering with the ODI format just makes it more and more confusing for anyone trying to make sense of cricket if they don't have extensive knowledge of it already. In addition, different balls at each end in ODI matches is a ridiculous idea......

    Message to the ICC: LEAVE CRICKET ALONE!

  • Yadukrishnan on September 30, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    Even after a long rain interruption, the interval between the innings in an ODI is not reduced. There is no logic in that.. :(

  • on September 30, 2011, 16:14 GMT

    some rules are ok, but some are terrible. The runout rule, the obstructing rule and no runners are useless laws.

  • landl47 on September 30, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    The really significant rules are the Powerplay tweak and the new ball rule. For the Powerplay tweak, I assume that if the game reaches the start of the 31st over without either side having opted for the Powerplay (which now has to be completed by the 40th over) the umpires will indicate that the next 10 overs are Powerplay overs. That means that the sides have only between the 15th and 30th overs to decide when to use the Powerplay, after that it will be the umpires' decision. I can't understand the logic behind this rule change. The new ball rule means that effectively the life of the new ball is doubled. If the shine would previously have lasted for, say, 8 overs, it will now be 16. A great rule for bowlers like Jimmy Anderson, who swing the new ball; not so good for sides who like to get their spinners on as soon as possible.

  • devghotra84 on September 30, 2011, 14:48 GMT

    Now since there are 2 new balls each can be used upto 25 overs max..wondering how that will effect spinners.

  • on September 30, 2011, 14:24 GMT

    "If a team is nine wickets down at the time of the lunch interval, the break will be delayed by a maximum of 30 minutes."

    Is this mandatory or is it optional?

  • on September 30, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    POWER PLAY- using before 40 overs is realy not such a good idea.. now there will be 2 powerplays that r wasted, batsmen will be saving there wicket to play the last 10. we r better off reducing the 50 overs to 40 ,,,

    OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD- subjective decision cannot be justified, this rule will reduce the life span of the umpires, specialy if its an indian batsmen,,

  • on September 30, 2011, 14:21 GMT

    Hope it gives enough strength to overcome the T20 force ...

  • Anurag_India on September 30, 2011, 13:54 GMT

    "The minimum interval for an uninterrupted ODI match has been increased from 20 minutes to 30 minutes. "

    Whats the rationale for this? As it is Cricket remains probably the only sport subject to so many weather related interruptions. ICC should be trying to make sure as much Cricket as possible is played so that the fans who buy expensive tickets and plan an entire day out don't go home disappointed.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Anurag_India on September 30, 2011, 13:54 GMT

    "The minimum interval for an uninterrupted ODI match has been increased from 20 minutes to 30 minutes. "

    Whats the rationale for this? As it is Cricket remains probably the only sport subject to so many weather related interruptions. ICC should be trying to make sure as much Cricket as possible is played so that the fans who buy expensive tickets and plan an entire day out don't go home disappointed.

  • on September 30, 2011, 14:21 GMT

    Hope it gives enough strength to overcome the T20 force ...

  • on September 30, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    POWER PLAY- using before 40 overs is realy not such a good idea.. now there will be 2 powerplays that r wasted, batsmen will be saving there wicket to play the last 10. we r better off reducing the 50 overs to 40 ,,,

    OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD- subjective decision cannot be justified, this rule will reduce the life span of the umpires, specialy if its an indian batsmen,,

  • on September 30, 2011, 14:24 GMT

    "If a team is nine wickets down at the time of the lunch interval, the break will be delayed by a maximum of 30 minutes."

    Is this mandatory or is it optional?

  • devghotra84 on September 30, 2011, 14:48 GMT

    Now since there are 2 new balls each can be used upto 25 overs max..wondering how that will effect spinners.

  • landl47 on September 30, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    The really significant rules are the Powerplay tweak and the new ball rule. For the Powerplay tweak, I assume that if the game reaches the start of the 31st over without either side having opted for the Powerplay (which now has to be completed by the 40th over) the umpires will indicate that the next 10 overs are Powerplay overs. That means that the sides have only between the 15th and 30th overs to decide when to use the Powerplay, after that it will be the umpires' decision. I can't understand the logic behind this rule change. The new ball rule means that effectively the life of the new ball is doubled. If the shine would previously have lasted for, say, 8 overs, it will now be 16. A great rule for bowlers like Jimmy Anderson, who swing the new ball; not so good for sides who like to get their spinners on as soon as possible.

  • on September 30, 2011, 16:14 GMT

    some rules are ok, but some are terrible. The runout rule, the obstructing rule and no runners are useless laws.

  • Yadukrishnan on September 30, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    Even after a long rain interruption, the interval between the innings in an ODI is not reduced. There is no logic in that.. :(

  • dr_zzzzz on September 30, 2011, 16:32 GMT

    Endless tinkering with the ODI format just makes it more and more confusing for anyone trying to make sense of cricket if they don't have extensive knowledge of it already. In addition, different balls at each end in ODI matches is a ridiculous idea......

    Message to the ICC: LEAVE CRICKET ALONE!

  • on September 30, 2011, 16:57 GMT

    only the run-out issue may create controversy at pressure situations