Possible solution to slow over rates - The Delivery Clock

The problem with slow over rates is that while it's most often the fielding side to blame, batsmen can - and do - exploit things when it suits them. How often have you seen a batsman, when an over commences 5 minutes before lunch do some or all of these:

• go down for a midwicket conference after every ball
  
• adjust his pads twice
  
• do a bit of 'gardening'
  
• swat away a fly just as the bowler gets two steps into his run-up?

These are all seemingly regarded as 'legitimate' tactics.

Neative, time-wasting tactics are not only seen in cricket. Cricket authorities have, however, been singulalry loathe to try anything serious to stamp them out.

I know that the original t20 series in England were supposed to have run penalties for slow over rates, but there were also (IIRC) supposed to be penalties for the batsman not being ready after an allotted time.

Rugby League in Australia has gone down the financial path, with goalkickers who take longer than 90 seconds fined. I don't know how many fines have been dished out, and I know some players still seem to take forever to take their shot. It doesn't seem to have made a huge difference, and I don't think financial penalties are the way to go.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but why not follow the lead of American sports? Basketball has a 'shot clock' and American football has a 'play clock', why not bring in a 'delivery clock' for cricket? The bowler must start their run-up by a certain point, while the batsman must be ready at the same time, both before the clock reaches zero.

If you fail to be ready to make the delivery in time, then a run penalty applies, with penalty runs added to, or deducted from, the batting team's total in real time. The third umpire would be responsible for monitoring time breaches.

The more often you transgress, the higher the penalty.

The later the delivery is made, the higher the penalty.

Given that there's already 30 seconds between overs to cater for TV, then how about setting it at 45 seconds from when the umpire calls over for the first ball of the next to be bowled? Based on at target 15 overs in an hour, that wipes out 675 seconds of the 3600 in the hour, leaving 2925.

While it would be easy to say 2925 seconds divided by 90 deliveries then leaves 32.5 seconds for the clock, this doesn't factor in variablesuch as wickets or injuries, so maybe trying an official time of 20 seconds per delivery would be a good start.

If there's no shot from the batsman, then the clock restarts as soon as the 'keeper has it in hand.

If a shot is played and the ball doesn't reach the boundary, then the clock starts as soon as the previously delivery is deemed 'complete', with the umpire at the bowling end to signal when the delivery is completed. This would stop the fielding team from holding on to the ball in the slips cordon in an effort to slow the game down, without the clock re-starting.

Following a boundary, the clock should restart to 30 seconds when the ball is returned to the umpire or any member of the fielding team, provided all 11 members of the fielding team are on the oval.

Following a wicket, the next delivery should follow within 90 seconds.

Obviously such a system would need refinement, and trials somewhere, but I think it would be worth a try.

Downside is that it may lead to a need for official 'time outs', but it would cut down many of the other delays in the game.

Zat I read your post and have spent time thinking about it, so this is not a flippant reply. I think the idea of monitoring games to ensure that they do not drag on is a fine one and much needed. Only by ensuring that Test matches remain interesting enough can we assure the long term future of the game (BTW, I am not conceding that yesterday's game was an example of this )

I just think that a new system works best if it is simple to apply, and yours seems to have too many moving parts or 'operational details'. Monitoring every ball IMHO just adds a lot of compexity to the game in terms of the mechanics of implementation, and also seems to be micromanaging how players play the game.

For example, in your idea I see the need for an official trigger every ball or a seconds countdown that is communicated to the players (a stadium bell?). Then a need to count whether every ball is over or under the limit. Then, communicate that to the captain (scoreboard. Indeed it can perhaps make the game more exciting but somehow also mechanical - but that is a different argument.

Not that micromanagement is a bad thing; but American Football and Baseball run for an hour or a couple of hours at best. Doing this over five days, measuring the seconds so to speak does not sound feasible to me purely in terms of the implementation.

A ball by ball count with penalties could also has the disadvantage of (it seems to me) impacting the mid game conferences, field changes etc during tense moments of the game, which adds to the excitement.

My opinion is that of Test cricket is a slice of life unfolding on the field, why not keep the management to a minimum while ensuring that it does not get boring? Why not simply give the bowling captain a target of 15 overs in an hour and let him get on with it? If he underperforms, he gets penalizes at the rate of (say) a run a ball.

Make the punishment harsh enough to matter and I believe the captains will get on with it themselves. This will leave plenty of room for the game to 'work itself out' and it will not be as intrusive.

Or, instead of just a run a ball penalty, make the penalty a function of the state of the game.

By that I mean, for a first innings, make it a run a ball. For the second innings make it a proportion of the first innings total of the oppo, and so on.

But on second thoughts even that is IMO too complicated. I think the key is in making it a simple system and prescribing a simple but effective punishment.

Say, for example, Why not just ban the offending captain for the next Test if it happens twice in a game?

Furri, I didn't say my system was perfect, but something has to be done.

Maybe instead of a ball-by-ball system, there could be a time limit to get each over delivered.

Unfortunately, any system that targets only the fielding team is then open to abuse by batsmen faffing about.

I don't think it would be too hard to put an electronic countdown clock on or adjacent to the scoreboard.

The difficulty with the current situation is that sanctions are meaningless in the context of the match, and when they're fines in terms of percentage of match fee, they're not exactly huge for many international players, especially the successful ones who have endoresments left, right, and centre. There needs to be something that impacts quickly.

Zat, I think your idea is great. I am just trying to take the discussion ahead in terms of implementation.

I think an over related time limit might be better because it, IMO, can be executed more easily. In terms of targeting teams, yeah you're right there needs to be something to take oppo batsmen into account.

What that is I do not know. But it is likely to be based on the Umpire's judgment and so potentially more controversial. Not that that is a reason for not doing it, I am just trying to think this through.

An electronic countdown clock is a decent idea. It would, IMO, add value to the game and also to the general anticipation/ excitement.

As for something needs to be done, I completely agree.

I've been running a stopwatch across the match in progress atm, and 20 seconds isn't long enough.

I think the 90 overs in a day requirement is meant to reflect inclusion of spinners who supposedly speed things up in terms of over rate.

I'm still amazed that the game's lost its way to such a degree compared to the old days.

Agree with Furry. The system needs to be simple.

Zat wrote:
I don't think it would be too hard to put an electronic countdown clock on or adjacent to the scoreboard.

Put it above the sightscreen, and have a gay basketball buzzer too.

philcric wrote:Agree with Furry. The system needs to be simple.

They could call it the Ponting system. He's a real simpleton.

The clock could be simply running down on the scorebard like in football games except it could show in red or green with plus or minus scores indicated.Time outs stop the clock causing extra time. One run a ball is added at the end of the innings to the batting side if necessary.

Batsman must be ready when the bowler reaches his mark.

The Batting Team gains a Run for every stride taken by the bowler during his run-up.

None of this techno bollocks.

Bowl your 90 overs in the day or the whole team gets fined and the captain banned. If there's a rain delay then bowl a number of overs proportional to the amount of time played or fine + ban still applies.

It's a piece of piss to get the overs in if you can be arsed. With no punishment to the worst offenders, namely Ponting who would have missed half his Tests if he had been punished as he should have been, there's no incentive to get a move on.

In the same time allotted to Test Match sessions, domestic four-day matches in England often manage to bowl the full 96 overs before time. So, if Test Cricketers can't do it I want to know why the ****** not?

90 overs should be easy.

They need to get tough. Make an example of Ponting and ban his hairy arse for 2 tests, not just 1.

And ban Dhoni for a test as well. It would surely be hard for the BCCI to put their foot down and refuse to accept the ban when for once an Aussie cricketer has come off worse than one of their guys. Might restore some sort of credibility to the ICC as well.....

Trev makes a sage point. They already have laws in the place, they just don't enforce them strict enough.


and what is so sacrocanct about Lunch and Tea. Why not just say you are not going to get fed until you bowl 30 overs each session. (as well as fining the feckers for the overs not bowled in the 2 hours)

Some form of stop watch on the bowlers might be the way to go. If the bowler's ready within the allotted time and the batsmen are still farking around mid-pitch the bowler can go ahead and bowl.

If the batsman pulls out because the sun's in his eyes, some dickhead in the crowd moves or a pidgeon sh1ts on him, big deal.

Fielders have to put up with it all the time and can't claim a catch if any of the above happens.

For all the faults of the shortest form of the game, it would be the perfect place to trial something like a play clock.

Scrap run-ups and let ALL bowlers peg the ball at the batsman.