2017 Laws are out

embee wrote:

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:DRS shake up?

" An umpire's call finding on a review may soon not cost teams a review. The ICC cricket committee, headed by India coach Anil Kumble, recommended on Thursday that teams do not lose reviews in those instances where an umpire's call comes into play. And if the ICC chief executives' committee approves it, the change could come into effect this October.

Currently, sides are allowed two unsuccessful reviews in the first 80 overs of a Test innings, and one per innings in ODIs. If a review is successful, they do not lose it.

LBW decisions, in particular, will be affected. The benefit of doubt in a DRS call goes to the on-field umpire's original call. Therefore, if they give a batsman out leg-before and it is challenged, then the third umpire has to uphold the on-field judgment if projections show half the ball hitting a zone that stretches from the outside edge of the off stump to the outside edge of the leg stump. This is the margin of error afforded to the "umpire's call".

Now, after a two-day meeting, former international captains Kumble, Rahul Dravid, Mahela Jayawardene, current Australia coach Darren Lehmann, ECB director of cricket Andrew Strauss, umpire Richard Kettleborough among others are agreed that if an lbw review comes back with a verdict of umpire's call, the team that called the review should not be penalised. "

---------------------------------

Seems reasonable. This has been touted in the commbox for some seasons now.

Terrible idea.  DRS is to address howlers.  By definition, an "umps call" is not a howler.  

What if the umps call of not out is because he thought the batsman hit the ball but replays show he missed it but the ball is in the umps call area of hitting the stumps so the not out stands even though the ump thought it was going to crash into the stumps ...

Meh. Pretty limited facts.

Don't like it, will only slow the game further and start a trend of more optimistic reviews.

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:DRS shake up?

" An umpire's call finding on a review may soon not cost teams a review. The ICC cricket committee, headed by India coach Anil Kumble, recommended on Thursday that teams do not lose reviews in those instances where an umpire's call comes into play. And if the ICC chief executives' committee approves it, the change could come into effect this October.

Currently, sides are allowed two unsuccessful reviews in the first 80 overs of a Test innings, and one per innings in ODIs. If a review is successful, they do not lose it.

LBW decisions, in particular, will be affected. The benefit of doubt in a DRS call goes to the on-field umpire's original call. Therefore, if they give a batsman out leg-before and it is challenged, then the third umpire has to uphold the on-field judgment if projections show half the ball hitting a zone that stretches from the outside edge of the off stump to the outside edge of the leg stump. This is the margin of error afforded to the "umpire's call".

Now, after a two-day meeting, former international captains Kumble, Rahul Dravid, Mahela Jayawardene, current Australia coach Darren Lehmann, ECB director of cricket Andrew Strauss, umpire Richard Kettleborough among others are agreed that if an lbw review comes back with a verdict of umpire's call, the team that called the review should not be penalised. "

---------------------------------

Seems reasonable. This has been touted in the commbox for some seasons now.

Terrible idea.  DRS is to address howlers.  By definition, an "umps call" is not a howler.  

Word.

Teams should not be wasting calls on marginal decisions.

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere but it seems that handled the ball as a form of dismissal is going the way of the dodo - the method of dismissal to be folded in to obstructing the field.

I feel a bit empty- similar to when Pluto had its planet status revoked.

Summary of the key changes

There are still 42 Laws, although two previous Laws have been deleted, with two additions. The significant changes are:

• The new Code of Laws is written in language applying to all persons, regardless of gender. The new Code includes an increased use of generic nouns like ‘fielder’ and ‘bowler’ and uses ‘he/she’ when required, together with a broadened disclaimer covering all genders. The term ‘batsman’ remains, however.

• The Handled the ball Law has been deleted, with its contents merged into Obstructing the field, reducing the list of dismissals from ten to nine. This will have no effect on whether a batsman is dismissed; rather, it is just the method of dismissal that might be changed.

• The Lost ball Law has been deleted and is now covered under Dead ball.

• The old Law 2 has been divided into two separate Laws, relating to the batsmen (Law 25) and the fielders (Law 24). These Laws have changed the concept of Penalty time, which starts to accrue immediately when a player leaves the field and which will also now affect when the player may bat.

• Law 5 (The Bat) places limits on the thickness of the edges and the overall depth of the bat. The maximum dimensions will be 108mm in width (unchanged), 67mm in depth with 40mm edges.

• Law 8.3.4. has been changed, to help prevent injuries, to allow specially designed mechanisms which tether the bails to the stumps, thereby restricting the distance that they can fly off the stumps but without limiting their ability to be dislodged.

• Law 24 (Fielders’ absence; substitutes) now allows a substitute to keep wicket, with the consent of the umpires.

• Law 30 (Batsman out of his/her ground) has been amended to give protection to a running or diving batsman whose bat bounces up after having been grounded beyond the popping crease.

• Law 41.8 now covers the bowling of deliberate front foot No balls, which will result in the bowler being suspended from bowling.

• Law 41.15 now prevents the batsman from taking stance in a position where he/she will inevitably encroach on the protected area.

• Law 41.16 has changed so that the non-striker risks being Run out if he/she leaves his/her ground before the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball.

• Law 42 (Player Conduct) is a new Law which gives an in-match consequence for poor on-field behaviour including, for the most serious offences, temporary or permanent removal from the field of play.

I don't get why handled the ball has been merged into obstructing the field... would seem more sensible to have done so with hit the ball twice, which is rarer and more narrowly defined.

Most HTB dismissals I recall were instinctive reactions to defend the stumps. That's not OTF as there's no involvement from a fielder.