2017 Laws are out

Link

Interesting reading

Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket:


That might challenge a few.

They really should post this in mark up.

If a runner commits a level 4 offence both he and the batsman are excluded from the remainder of the match ...but only the runner is reported

...and some bizarre arm waving signals

"pump and push off "

"pump and piss off "

rather than red and yellow cards

Is that a joke? Or did they just figure it would be rarely used so screw it we'll have some fun?

The following signals are for Levels 3 and 4 of the player conduct offences. Each
signal has two parts, both of which should be acknowledged separately by the
scorers.
Level 3 conduct - Part 1 - by putting one arm out to the side of the body and
repeatedly raising it and lowering it.
- Part 2 - by raising both hands, all fingers spread,
to shoulder height, palms facing towards the scorers.
Level 4 conduct - Part 1 - by putting one arm out to the side of the body and
repeatedly raising it and lowering it.
- Part 2 - by raising an index finger, held at shoulder height,
to the side of the body.

OK! I thought it was pumping with a clenched fist a la holding in nfl.
Could you get someone to record it first time you do it.
Just so the boys can have a giggle.

embee wrote:The following signals are for Levels 3 and 4 of the player conduct offences. Each
signal has two parts, both of which should be acknowledged separately by the
scorers.
Level 3 conduct - Part 1 - by putting one arm out to the side of the body and
repeatedly raising it and lowering it.
- Part 2 - by raising both hands, all fingers spread,
to shoulder height, palms facing towards the scorers.
Level 4 conduct - Part 1 - by putting one arm out to the side of the body and
repeatedly raising it and lowering it.
- Part 2 - by raising an index finger, held at shoulder height,
to the side of the body.

Admit it. You have already practised the signals.

only to the point of trying to interpret them
would prefer yellow and red cards

I think level 4 conduct can do with some modifications to spruce it up.

Part 1 - putting one arm on the centre of the body and repeatedly raising and lowering it.

Part 2 - raising the middle finger at shoulder height to one side of the body, ideally the side the offender is in.

That would make it more interesting than flapping around like Daffy duck.

They want more entertainment in the game, how about the mlb big wind up and "you're outta here".

And if that's successful, which it will be, then go full Monty and smash offenders with steel chairs. Sledgehammer from triple h in case of particularly smug twats.

Seriously though. What incidents at fc level in the past would have warranted it?

Gatting's or Smith's, which involved unproven and probably unprovable cheating?

42.4.1 Either of the following actions by a player shall constitute a Level 3 offence:
- intimidating an umpire by language or gesture
- threatening to assault a player or any other person except an umpire. See


42.5 Level 4 offences and action by umpires
42.5.1 Any of the following actions by a player shall constitute a Level 4 offence:
- threatening to assault an umpire
- making inappropriate and deliberate physical contact with an umpire
- physically assaulting a player or any other person
- committing any other act of violence.


Not likely to see too much of either on TV.

What happens in case of stump can picking taunts up like Clarke breaking Anderson's ****** arm?

I'm disappointed the 'dropkick' signal has not been used here, with a middle finger raise used for escalation from level 3 to level 4.

JGK wrote:They really should post this in mark up.

Agree.

Am I right in assuming that two of the changes are:

Handled the ball is now covered under Obstructed the Field?

and

The making the ground rule changed to allow grounding behind the line then bouncing up - can't be run out?

embee wrote:only to the point of trying to interpret them
would prefer yellow and red cards

I think I still have mine from my soccer days. My proudest moment was red carding a linesman.

Reducing the thickness of the bats is good.

Red wrote:Reducing the thickness of the bats is good.

Yes...it will put Warner out of a job.

Red wrote:Reducing the thickness of the bats is good.

Here come the court cases.

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.

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.

Good point that.

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 ...