• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bad Light Ruling

willb88

Cricket Spectator
I think after the Eng and SA players went off today for bad light when the light did not look as bad as before, and Vaughan said that the light was good, why are the umpires not consistent, and is there a specified number on the light meters that forces the umpires to offer the light?
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
its a stupid rule.
They claim its for safety. Yet 99% of the time a team will stay out when offered so called 'unsafe' light if they are at an advantage. Test cricket is apparently losing its appeal atm, so forcing play to stop when the light is poor but certainly playable and disapointing fans at the ground and on tv just makes NO SENSE.
They should come up with a meter reading that the ICC claims is the least 'playable' light reading. This would be not at the first sign of bad light but when the light is just unplayable (forget this safety crap). Then they go off when this reading is met. No amount of complaining b4 this reading has been reached should matter and play should continue. Problem solved.
 

Scallywag

Banned
TV cameras can adjust the contrast and brightness levels but the umpire cant. I have read Vaughans comments and I think if it had been in Englands interest to leave the field he would not have said anything. He wants to win and its his way of challenging the South Africans to play on when the light is bad. He may not have said anything if England were 8-148.

Before you jump down my throat I know that Ponting would do the same and I think its good that Vaughan is trying every tactic available to him to get a result. Just dont blame the umpires as they will allways be in a catch 22 because two teams will allways want what the other doesent and whatever decision they make one team will allways say its the wrong decision.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
^ Of course Vaughan wouldn't have said anything if England was 8-148 because HE would have taken the light. As it stands, he's complaining because he DID NOT want to take the light and his hand was forced by the disgraceful Bucknor.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Mr Casson said:
^ Of course Vaughan wouldn't have said anything if England was 8-148 because HE would have taken the light. As it stands, he's complaining because he DID NOT want to take the light and his hand was forced by the disgraceful Bucknor.
Give it a rest. I bet most of you are not aware that the umpires are legally responsible if any players get seriously injured and it is found that the players should not have been on the field due to bad light or poor conditions. In these days of whimsical litigation, I'm not surprised the umpires go off at the slighest sign.
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
Mister Wright said:
Give it a rest. I bet most of you are not aware that the umpires are legally responsible if any players get seriously injured and it is found that the players should not have been on the field due to bad light or poor conditions. In these days of whimsical litigation, I'm not surprised the umpires go off at the slighest sign.
So why didnt they force the players off when they first offered the light? The fact of the matter was the light was better than at the start of the day when they played. Certainly no worse.
 

Scallywag

Banned
SpaceMonkey said:
So why didnt they force the players off when they first offered the light? The fact of the matter was the light was better than at the start of the day when they played. Certainly no worse.
If the umpires offer the players to go off because of poor light and the players refuse the offer then no problem the umpire has done his job but if one team says the light is a saftey concern then the umpire has no choice.

The players were not forced off by the umpires, the umpires were reacting to a request from the SA team.

Vaughan even stated that himself.
"The umpires have to make a decision," he added, "but at one o'clock, we were batting in indifferent conditions, and then the fielding captain asks for the light when they are in a bit of trouble, and the umpires accept. They just said it was off, and once they tell you, that's it."

The umpires acted in accordance with the rules laid out before the start of the game and would have done the same thing regardless of who was batting or what position the game was.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Mister Wright said:
Give it a rest. I bet most of you are not aware that the umpires are legally responsible if any players get seriously injured and it is found that the players should not have been on the field due to bad light or poor conditions. In these days of whimsical litigation, I'm not surprised the umpires go off at the slighest sign.
But the light didn't look to be getting very bad. The only thing that was getting worse and worse is Graeme Smith in the umpires' ears.
 

JASON

Cricketer Of The Year
Why is this a new thread, instead of being on the England V South Africa thread ?

On the subject of Bucknor, I think he has become so insecure (as an ump) by bad decisions as well as criticism that the guy is now resorting to keeping Captains happy to stay on the job ,IMO. :)
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
JASON said:
Why is this a new thread, instead of being on the England V South Africa thread ?
Because it is not only about what happened in Jo'burg; it's about the bad light rule in general.
 

telsor

U19 12th Man
When the light meter says the light is below X, the umpires are obliged to offer the light.

The reason for this is that when they had the discretion, they got accused of bias, so a fixed level was decided on. Now umpires have to make the same decision regardless of who is batting/bowling.

The rule is supposed to be there to protect the safety of players...almost exclusively the batsmen. The speed of the bowler and quality of the batsman *should* be considered, but that would require a judgement call, and every time the umpires make on of them there is an outcry of bias.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
I'm finding this particular incident to be confusing, probably because I'd always assumed that only batsman were ever consulted in bad light decisions.

And to make things even cloudier, Steve Bucknor has claimed that the umpires made this decision completely independently, and that Graeme Smith had absolutely nothing to do with it.

In the Guardian, mention of a new rule was made, but I don't really understand what the purpose behind this rule would be:

"The second day closed with South Africa on the ropes, their discipline in tatters, grateful for the rule that, when the floodlights are on, offers them the option of going off if the batsmen have turned it down."

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,10069,1390953,00.html

Either way, I'm surprised at Graeme Smith's harping over the light - apparently this isn't the first time, either. I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a fielding side captain pestering the umpires over bad light when the batting side were happy to continue.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
SpaceMonkey said:
They should come up with a meter reading that the ICC claims is the least 'playable' light reading.
I don't actually think that would work because every stadium is different.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Slow Love™ said:
Either way, I'm surprised at Graeme Smith's harping over the light - apparently this isn't the first time, either. I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a fielding side captain pestering the umpires over bad light when the batting side were happy to continue.
Didn't it happen in the 1st Test as well?

Pity we can't go back to the old rules like back in Pakistan when Moin tried to go at 9 overs an hour.

At the end of the day, if play over-runs it is almost always the fielding team's fault, so why should they be allowed to not complete their quota if the batsmen are happy to continue?
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
It sems that the two teams had agreed before hand that even the fielding side could have an option to complain against the light and the umpires, once a tandard for bad light were set on the light meter, were obliged to accept the appeal of whoever wanted to go off, fielders or batsmen ! If thats the case, no one can crib but its totally ridiculous and should never have been agreed to in the first place.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
The main problem Vaughan said he had was that the light earlier in the day (when England lost 3 wickets and were not offered the light) was much worse than the light when SA were offered it.

The light was also better when they went off than when they came on (according to Vaughan), the consistancy was what Vaughan was not happy about
 

biased indian

International Coach
superkingdave said:
The main problem Vaughan said he had was that the light earlier in the day (when England lost 3 wickets and were not offered the light) was much worse than the light when SA were offered it.

The light was also better when they went off than when they came on (according to Vaughan), the consistancy was what Vaughan was not happy about
at end of the day their is little scope of light improving may be thats y they were offered the light!!
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Mister Wright said:
I bet most of you are not aware that the umpires are legally responsible if any players get seriously injured and it is found that the players should not have been on the field due to bad light or poor conditions.
Even when the light was as good as it was yesterday?
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
SJS said:
It sems that the two teams had agreed before hand that even the fielding side could have an option to complain against the light and the umpires, once a tandard for bad light were set on the light meter, were obliged to accept the appeal of whoever wanted to go off, fielders or batsmen ! If thats the case, no one can crib but its totally ridiculous and should never have been agreed to in the first place.
SJS, do you have any more info on this (or a source)? What a weird arrangement. Still don't understand how the floodlights come into it though.

I wonder if it was an arrangement between the captains or the respective boards - 'cause if Vaughan agreed to this, he really shot himself in the foot, as Smith has made really good use of it so far. Hopefully we won't see a situation like this again.
 

Top