91Èȱ¬

Last June I attended the Ireland v South Africa ODI at Stormont, which was heavily affected by rain, cutting the overs down to 28. There was an absolute downpour during the South African innings and during the Ireland innings it got close to a typhoon, the rain was absolutely lashing down, it was windy and there was poor light but the Umpires let play continue. How come this was the case in that game and yet last night things had to be abandoned? Consistency would be nice.

I sympathise entirely. It is though a problem at the domestic level too. I was fortunate enough to be able to go and see Glamorgan take on Warwickshire in the first round of Twenty20 matches this year. The forecast was also rather gloomy for this match. Indeed after a prompt start rain arrived and sent the players from the field for a reasonable amount of time.

When it stopped raining it was I would suggest entirely obvious that it was going to rain again at some point sooner or later that evening. As such the common sense approach would have been to accept this and try to fit in a game by commencing the Glamorgan innings as soon as possible. Instead what happened was the Warwickshire innings was resumed and it was hoped to play a 19 overs aside match.

I never honestly thought that match would be concluded and as it turned out the end of the Warwickshire innings coincided with the end of the match as the rain returned during the interval and didn't stop for the rest of the evening.

I applaud the ECB for allowing extra time in such matches to try to complete games, I think on this occassion we could go on until 22.45, but this only makes sense if that is going to allow for a game. If the weather is clearly going to limit the playing time again the umpires should have the discretion with the approval of the captains to shorten the game so it is much more likely to be concluded.

As it was the only real benefit from this match was it possibly allowed Bell to regain some form.

Good article on the utterly bizarre farce that the regulations and umpires made of the Edgbaston ODI. Only cricket eh.

Mr Common Sense was truly thrown out of the window, the Kiwis robbed of a win and many thousands of fans left totally frustrated thanks to inept ECB regulations and unthinking umpires.

Not an impressive day for cricket. Perhaps the poorest form of officialdom since Englnad were offered bad light at a sunny Trent Bridge in, I think, 2002.

I'll say. We traveled from London to Edgebaston. No play til 3pm meant we had to sit in our sits with hope rather than expectation. You pay your money you take your chance but if you are a casual or a newcomer to cricket I doubt you'd ever want to go again. The 1/2 hour interval was too long.
When the groundstaff want to get the covers off quickly they can, but to delay the start til 3pm was a farce as the weather was clear by 2pm they said it would take 1/2 an hour to "prepare the ground". The ECB wanted to get the 24.1 overs in and then sod the rest, who cares about the results!
Solution is to refund the fans some of their monies (£55 quid)

Can anyone explain why there had to be the farcical "warm up" / catching practise / coin tossing and so on before the actual play could start? Sky TV, perhaps?
We must have lost at least half an hour of bright, sunny weather. Surely this could have been done before the teams even took to the field, then we might have seen a proper game.
Interestingly, if the game didn't happen, aren't we entitled to a full refund?

Dug out the trusty blue book last night that is the MCC Laws of the game (2000 2nd Edition 2003 Code) and the ODI Regs.

Seems like we didn't have to have such a long break!

Law 15 (Intervals) is affected by the ODI Regs, but only seeks to change 2 points. One that isn't changed is Law 15.10 which clearly states that at any time in the match both captains may agree to forgo a tea interval. Sadly, it seems that the officals, captains and/or "powers that be" have had a different interpretation of the combination of Laws and ODI Regs and how to imply them.

Given my interest, and bitter, twisted and angry person side, I've written to the parties concerned about this. My email is on my own blog, which I am updating as I get replies:

The beaviour of the umpires and match officals have clearly brought the game in disrupt. Surely time to treat officals as you would the players. Fine the officals 50% or even 100% of their match fee. This will make them think again next time and consider the spectator

I don't see an argument for playing 6 extra balls. Of course that would lead to a result being possible but whichever team was behind would be perfectly within its rights to request the further 3 overs assuming no deterioration in conditions.

Every over there would be more discussion with the leading team wanting to go off and the trailing team wanting to remain.

I think in this position, it had to be 23 overs or nothing.

£220 for four tickets and then forced to sit through a 30 minute break between innings!
When are the ECB going to give the umpires some power to apply common sense in these situations? If there is a no result we should get our money back (at present after 25 overs has been bowled you get nothing) perhaps that would focus some minds. Cricket is fast following football down the cash is king route at the expense of the fans. Only problem is cricket does not command nearly as much blind loyalty as football. Don't destroy the future for today's bank balance.

Ok, let's take yesterday's scenario forward to the much-vaunted Stanford 20/20 game in November. If a similar situation happened there, and there was 1 over to go when the heavens opened, what would the match officials do, knowing that on the outcome depended which side won the prize money?

Would the same decision be taken (i.e. to abandon the game)? Can you imagine the furore?

It's time that cricket officialdom woke up to the fact that we, the spectators, have rights as well as the players. We have the right to expect the game to be officiated fairly and with reasonable common sense.

As Sir Ian said in the commentary box afterwards, this is supposed to be part of the entertainment industry. It is no wonder that cricket has a reputation for cock-ups. The ICC as a body should be given a rocket, and if officials cannot utilize a little common sense in these situations they should be told that their services are no longer required.

Sadly, however, I am not holding my breath for the 'powers-that-be' to have a collective brainstorm and realize that they are reducing the standing of cricket to a new low, by such ludicrous decisions as this.

Surely, if, in the spirit of the game, the two captains decide on something, and, for certain decisions, the umpires agree, under the Laws any of these one-off 'regulations' decreed by who-knows can be overridden? That would have sorted the most ludicrous event yesterday - the 30 minute interval in clear weather. See Law 1.4

I cant help feeling a lot of these posts are over-reacting - the conditions from what I saw were terrible - I think the umpires wanted the paying fans to see as much cricket as they could while still being able to clain a partial refund, without allowing the games result to stand in what would have been a contentious result. Certainly if I had been there that is what I would have wanted - especially as England were about to lose!

Typically British, wanting to be fair to the Black Caps who were on the point of winning. The Australians would have been doing a rain dance the minute McCullam got his eye in and probably slipping over on their run ups.

You could also suggest that the NZs must have known that the rain was coming and should have put the game to bed by the time it got there.

Pre established rules can be changed on a whim.

While it's nice for you chaps in the media to be worried about our welfare - and thank you for that - I have to say that, from where I was sitting in the Raglan stand, those last few overs of the NZ innings were just tortuous for the spectators. We were wet, we were VERY cold, we were tired from the long hours of waiting. And while we were grateful to have seen any cricket at all in the horrendous conditions, the cricket we DID see, was not exactly sparkling (Luke Wright's best efforts and Scott Styris' efforts aside).

For me and those around me, including a good number of Kiwis, the umpires' decision was a blessed relief and, at that time, no one seemed to care that there had been no actual result. Certainly, the alacrity with which the stands emptied should have told you something!!!

It's only now, with the benefit of a good night's sleep, that I find myself angry at the rediculous infexibility of cricketing organisation.

While everyone keeps moaning about the 30 minute break between innings - which was irritating - you should remember that it did actually rain during the break so it may not have been possible to shorten it then.

But what drove us mad was the performance earlier when, while sitting in relatively balmy, dry conditions around 2pm, as the covers were already being removed, we were told that there would be an umpires inspection in 10 minutes (question - why not straight away?) and then, after the inspection, that play would start in 40 minutes time at 3.00!!!. If the play had started at 2.30 then then game could have been played to a conclusion!

And if the delay was to allow the players to warm up - why didn't they just make use of the excellent indoor facilities while the covers were coming off and the inspections being made?

A couple of small details.

During tea, it rained again, hence the resumption was slightly delayed and a further over was taken off the New Zealand innings. Yes, there was some much better weather during tea, but there would still have been a rain interruption.

Conditions when the umpires called a halt were probably worse for the fielding side, with sighting the ball from the boundary difficult and conditions for taking catches, almost impossible. In the end it was the dark more than the rain that was the deciding factor. At times the commentators could not identify players clearly because it was so dark.

New Zealand were ahead on Duckworth-Lewis but, had they lost a wicket (not impossible in the murk), England would have won. The factor for the final over was 7 runs AND NO WICKETS LOST.

That said, New Zealand did look the most likely winners. However, when the game restarted after England's overs had been further reduced, the umpires did warn everyone that the extra hour had been used and that if there were any further delay the game was "probably dead in the water". Both sides knew that time was going to be very tight and it was evident well in advance that New Zealand would not complete their 23 overs because of the weather. Possibly the umpires should have hurried along England more to complete their overs, but in a tight run chase the fielding captain would say that field placings cannot be rushed.

In other words, it was a complete cock-up all round, although it was surreal to get to 19 overs and then not stay on 3 more minutes, however bad the conditions. In past precedents though for playing in near darkness, it has not be raining too and the umpires were generally punishing the fielding side for deliberately slowing the over rate, so there should be some understanding for the umpires too, who were trying to be fair to both sides.

As a kiwi I'm not complaining about the result.

If the result had gone the other way we'd be the ones laughing, the rules aren't perfect but are the same for both teams.

Naturally I sympathise with the spectators at the ground, but I have none for the Black Caps.

Fair play to the poms.

If it's unfit for play, it's unfit, whether there's one ball to go or a hundred - but the question, as you say, is why try for 29 overs in the first place? What a shambles that 43 overs couldn't make it a match!

Maybe there should be just 3 options: 50 overs, 40 overs or 20 overs (the 3 standard lengths). As soon as it becomes clear a 50-over game will be impossible, it becomes a 40-over game, etc. That way there isn't the constant fiddling around with targets, there's more chance both teams will be batting the same number of overs (making it clearer and fairer for everyone), and there's more chance of getting a result.

There is probably no more ardent England supporter than me - well there may be! But I am also a fan of cricket. What happened yesterday was absurd. Could the umpires not have made it a 20 over match and then used the Twenty20 interval time?
30 minutes was crazy. Neither team needed that long. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing; but the match would have been concluded without resorting to the insane D/L - which of course they didn't do anyway! I feel that New Zealand were probably deprived of a much needed - and deserved - victory. Had I been a spectator new to the game, I would have been bewildered, and unlikely ever to watch another match. And yes, I do understand what the umpires describe as "conditions". That doesn't mean I support them . . .

As an England fan who has spent thousands of pounds and travelled thousands of miles, I really have had it. Zimbabwe, the world cup fiasco and the no result last night. I love my cricket but not run by a bunch of chimpanzees.

I remember being at Old Trafford for the Ashes test on the Saturday in 2005. There was drizzle all day so no play. We got there at 9.30am, and of course, waited around all day, just in case things improved.

Then it brightened up, the players came out, played 14 overs (just enough so we didn't get a full refund), and finished at 6pm in the best weather and light of the day.!

To say many people were not that understanding towards those who make these rules is a bit of an understatment!

WHERE WAS RULE 43 WHEN IT WAS MOST NEEDED???

Cricket is a law unto itself!

It was incorrectly stated on TMS a few weeks ago that tennis also stops for bad light. NO IT DOES NOT!!!

Tennis stops when it gets dark, i.e. night falls. See the difference TMS staff?

You have never seen a Wimbledon match stop in the middle of the day because it clouded over!

Come on cricket. Get a grip.

Question: why only now has the ICC decided that something should be done about the interval rules? It's not the first time this sort of circus has happened, after all.

Have said it before, but I'll say it again, the Higher Ups have lost the plot. Couldn't agree more with Andy Jones' (#19) comments about the game being run by a bunch of chimpanzees atm, even if it is insulting to the 'real' chimps.

The umpires would have been off two or three overs earlier if it had been Brett Lee or Shoaib Aktar bowling, or if NZ had been five or six down.

The reason I do not buy tickets in advance for test matches and/or day internationals is simple. If it's raining fair enough, you can't play cricket when the heavens open. But bad light is a bone of contention with me bcause all too often teams leave the field for tactical reasons. In this day and age, protection from serious injury is common place amongst all batsmen, and if the Umpires were given the discresion to tell the fielding Captain not to bowl deiveries that may involve hitting the Batsmen on the head i.e. bouncers, why shouldn't play continue and give the paying public what they've paid to watch.

As for that debacle at Birmingham on wednesday, once again the Umpires, and the match Referee should use a bit of discresion or dare I say it common sense to unsure the Public get what they paid for.

Unfortunately until the authorities make watching test matches and ODI's more paying public more friendly, I'm going to stick to watching it on TV

Yes, farcical indeed. The umpires are not totally blameless though. They allowed England to bowl a ridiculously slow over rate which was plainly aimed at killing time until the rain came. Stopping this was in the umpire’s control. The thing that has turned me away from cricket is this slow over rate which, as a paying fan, I can only interpret as contempt towards the public from the players.

The thing that has always annoyed me about cricket bad weather days is that when it finally stops raining, it takes the umpires twenty minutes to come out and look at the pitch (ritually not wearing their match coats, but different coats). Then, once they eventually pronounce things playable, after the announcement comes that play will start again in... about three quarters of an hour. To let areas of the outfield dry out, they sometimes say. In three quarters of an hour? Rubbish.

If they'd got things going as soon as the rain stopped at Edgbaston, the match would have been completed.

There's a lot of over-reaction about this. As far as I can see, the only bad thing really was the inflexibility over the 30-minute break. I wasn't there but some have said it rained during the break anyway so perhaps if they'd only had 10 minutes or 15, it wouldn't have made any difference. Nevertheless, in a rain-reduced game - or even in a situation where rain is possible, I think umpires should have the option to reduce the length of the break - and make it the umpires only please. None of this 'agreement of the captains' stuff as they will only do what they think will benefit their side anyway.

Speaking of the captains, I'll accept no criticism from *any* of the ex-players in the commentary box, or Daniel Vettori for that matter. Every single one of them would have done the same had they been in the situation England were in. You do what you have to do to avoid the loss.

Re bad light - well I don't know about you but I suspect facing even a medium pacer in poor light is not a good prospect. A cricket ball going at 75-80 mph can do a lot of damage. Yes they do wear protection but wasn't Flynn wearing a helmet when he got hit by Anderson? It's not only batsmen either. Potentially it's worse for fielders who don't have the benefit of sightscreens and may have to pick out white balls against grey skies. Nobody - so far as I know - has ever received a serious injury from being hit by a tennis ball in poor light!

Wet ground. Well this does 2 things. Firstly it makes the ground slippery. Fielders sprinting around the boundary to pick up and throw need to be sure of their feet. Similarly they don't need their feet sticking in the turf when they're trying to slide because the ground is soggy. How many Simon Jones-type injuries do people want to see? Secondly water on the ground gets into the ball and makes it hard to hold, and also messes up any plans the bowlers may have to shine and swing it. A ground has to have time to dry. Yes it is frustrating but come on - you can't play cricket on a wet outfield.

As for the length of the games - I see people saying "it was obvious they wouldn't get 29 overs in so they should have played a 20/20". What rubbish that is. It might well *not* have rained and what would they be saying to the spectators then about denying them 18 overs of cricket. If I pay for a ticket for a 50 over match I'm paying for 100 overs. If I can't see 100, I want to see as much as I possibly can thank you very much. Try to play what you can and don't second guess the weather.

As for the game itself - well it was raining quite hard so they came off. Yes it was sad it happened when it did but why should England play one more over so New Zealand can probably win? NZ wouldn't if the roles were reversed.. and as someone said, if they'd played that one more over and NZ had been ahead on D/L - why should England not then demand they stay out there - assuming it didn't get any worse? Had NZ been ahead, the batsmen would have been moaning about turning when running or bad light or some such thing.

Yes it is annoying when the rain ruins things but until someone invents a huuuge umbrella which you can erect over a ground the size of the Oval, say, we're stuck with it.

The farce was created by three key and avoidable factors. Blame has been aimed at the interval, that is one of the three, but in my view only third in making the match abandoned

1. Officials. Who decided how many overs to bowl? How did they decide the number of overs? Once it was down to less than 30 overs with more rain likely they should have made sure both sides batted the minimum number to make a match and that's 20. They managed 42 overs, to me that's as poor management as captains who can't fit in the overs for a key bowler. Lose 10 overs per side for every hour lost to the rain, that should more than adequately allow some flexibility.

2. Slow Over Rate. I believe Vettori pointed out England bowled 19 overs in 83 minutes, if correct then the umpires should have been actively doing something about it. I'd be tempted to have awarded it to the Kiwis who doubtless would have won and on the grounds of bad sportsmanship on the part of England.

3. The Interval. Yes, it is ridiculous to take a full interval during an abbreviated game. No more ridiculous though than taking an early lunch in a Test where rain has prevented play before lunch and taking the full 40 mins. It is a break and they need to eat, but since the cricketers have all been sat around and not playing then they should only need time enough to eat or they're simply taking a break they don't need when conditions may be playable.



I'm sure the main concern of the officials may be to get the game finished, I'm also sure they are under strict instruction to make sure the minimum number of overs are bowled so spectators don't get a refund. The spectators paid full whack for 42% of a game, I've paid full whack at a Test match for around 32% of a day's play. I am surprised cricket organisers can get away with it, I would have thought some small refund for less than half a match would have been more than fair - or a money off voucher for a future match at the same venue.

A few days late, but I'm still angry. I bought the tickets back in December for my Dad's 80th, which was in January but this gave us something to look forward to. This was to be my first professional cricket match, and my Dad's umpteenth - all of which watching Kent as a boy.

Of course, the weather can't be controlled, but surely to goodness the way the event was handled could have been better. 20 overs/side should have been declared at 3.00 pm and we would have had a result. Weather forecasting is much imrpoved and pretty accurate these days.

Bottom line? I think it's highly unlikely I'll go again - and my Dad certainly won't.

Re: Slow over rate at Edgbaston.

Collingwood got a lot of stick at Edgbaston because England only bowled 19 overs in 83 minutes. I was lucky enough to be at the Oval yesterday. NZ took 88 minutes to bowl their first 19. There was a drinks break but, as Aggers said at the time, it was a remarkably short one.

Sides have 210 minutes to bowl 50 overs. Collingwood was one over behind the rate. NZ yesterday at the same point were 2 overs behind.

Just saying what others have - the real problem was the one now addressed - the inability to adjust the break in these circumstances.