How Relevant is Law 41.5 Today?

From Antony Chettupuzha, India
Fielding restrictions are an important part of limited over internationals. While it may seem that it is only the batting side that gains from them, the truth is that they can also aid the fielding side, if specific bowling plans are executed correctly. But that's just about as far as I am sold on fielding restrictions in cricket, particularly in the longer format.

Which brings me to Law 41.5 which states: Limitation of on side fielders At the instant of the bowler's delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side. A fielder will be considered to be behind the popping crease unless the whole of his person, whether grounded or in the air, is in front of this line. In the event of infringement of this Law by the fielding side, the umpire at the striker's end shall call and signal No ball.

I assume the law was drafted to counter Bodyline tactics, which was probably fair enough since in those days batsmen didn't have adequate protection and were not trained to deal with that form of attack - targeting the body rather than the stumps. One of the stronger arguments of the day was that it went against the spirit of cricket. But honestly, when we have restrictions on how many bouncers can be bowled per over, these arguments become irrelevant. Batsman today expect short pitched deliveries and are adequately trained and protected to face them.

Today the spirit of cricket is usually only invoked to divert attention from an ugly incident. There can be little doubt that the game has shifted firmly in favor of batsmen nowadays, and all this law does is take away a legitimate form of attack for the bowling side. The law has virtually cast a death sentence on one of the more interesting fielding placements in cricket - the leg slip. Which is a shame. When the fielding side can have someone at short leg, and two men out at behind and in front of square on the on side it is pretty clear what the tactics are. This is legitimate and considered a test of the batsman's ability to handle short deliveries aimed at his chest. Why then do we have to stop short of a full out attack and restrict the number of fielders that have to stand behind the popping crease on the on side, for tradition?

There are already laws, notably 42.6, which protect batsmen from dangerous short pitched bowling. Bowlers are penalized with No Balls, warned a couple of times and if they persist in banned from bowling further in the match. The skill of the player facing the deliveries is taken into consideration. Similarly, negative tactics are also put in check. So while the law is woven into the rich fabric that is cricket history, I believe it honestly has no place in Test cricket today, or even limited overs cricket for that matter. It takes away attacking fielding positions for both spinners and fast bowlers and therefore also specific lines of attack, which could only add variety and intrigue. If nothing else, at the very least it gives the appearance that the game is not batsman-centric, something we might well forget with all the new restrictions and laws in the shorter formats of the game.