Don't ban captains for slow over-rates

I find many comments made by many here are ridiculous. What is most funny is that when SL intelligently take advantage of loop holes, then it becomes an issue. And that becomes against the spirit of the game. What about sledging then. So when Greig Chappel bowled the underarm to avoid hitting a six was not against the spirit of the game. Additionally, there are new rules like two new balls should be used from either ends facilitating mainly fast bowlers but not the spinners and reverse swing bowlers. Am I the only one thinking that many Aus/Eng cricket authorities pushing to get advantage for their sides? Cricinfo please post.

today's players miss enough games anyway due to injuries or fatigue; no point making them sit out even more with these silly rules. no spirit of cricket is served by this. just have higher cash penalties for slow over rates and get it over with. don't criticise mahela/sanga or anyone esle who have found a way around it. ad breaks sleazily packaged as strategic time-outs are not seen as impediments to the game and violations of its spirit but captains taking an extra minute or two to set a field is a gross violation???

Well what SL did was against the spirit but by excluding this rule can certainly help MSD and AB.

dont ban captains dont fine anyone, instead add penalty runs to the opposite team. Devise a formula like duckworth and lewis to add these penalty runs to the opposition. Fr teams batting second in one day, calculations could be made after every 20 overs to force the fielding captain to finish in time.

The on field umpires are not taking sufficient control to ensure that teams are not ensuring that over rates are managed effectively - a typical example is that i was at Newlands on both dates at the start of play and breaks play normally starts 2 minutes after it should - also in between there is to much leeway given to fielding sides so hence needs better and more proactive leadership by umps

A solution could be to add the number of runs from the highest scoring overs to the batting team's score if they are guilty of wasting time/ slow over rate. In the case of the batting team causing the delay the on field umpires need to take the situation in their hand by giving one warning to the batsman and then retiring the said batsman hurt in the case of another incidence of delaying tactics. This would balance the issue.

It was said of the West Indies thirty-odd years ago that they slowed things down to about 12 overs per hour when things weren't going their way, thus effectively resting their pace bowlers without requiring a spinner. They were a truly great team but things like that, although beneficial to those doing it, cannot at all be good for the game. I would like to see a tough stance on any such behaviour, whoever does it and whenever it happens. If that means that someone like Jonathon Trott for example, whose batting I freely admit to liking immensely, but who has raised a few eyebrows for taking a while between facing balls, is ultimately timed-out for taking too long, then so be it. Equally, though, if bowlers take too long walking back to their mark etc, the team should be subject to a run penalty. Ninety overs in a day shouldn't take seven hours.

Posted by   on (February 18, 2013, 6:59 GMT)

@SolFish - actually, it had little or nothing to do with curbing the dominance of the Windies quicks. It was to try and increase what had become often funereal over rates, which were a by-product of most teams stacking up on fast men, thereby increasing the number of overs bowled, the amount of cricket played, and (hopefully) make the game more interesting for spectators.

Captains at every level are responsible for the on-field conduct of their team, and that extends to over rates.

We don't hear of batsmen being penalized for low run rates, wasting time when they stop the bowler in the midst of his run up, time used for referrals to the 3rd umpire, balls knocked out of the ground. Please quit placing the blame on the bowlers or the fielding team, these silly rules only came about because of the WI 4 prong pace attack of the 70's to prevent their domination and the hit them in the pocket if they persisted.

The writer needs to improve his journalism skills. He has devoted almost his whole article to a couple of incidents and given his opinion in a couple of sentences at the end. A good journalist would have provided more insights into his rationale in the article.