Statutory minimum overs-per-day?

[Richard]

This rule has been tinkered with many times. I've never heard of it being anything other than 90, but as you can see by the fact I'm asking the question, I don't know the ins-and-outs. IIRR, it's featured:

• X overs per day must be bowled regardless of finish time and can only be reduced by play being stopped.
• X overs per day must be bowled (barring lost play) and there's the scheduled six plus one extra (if needed) hour in which to get these in - this hour can also be used to make-up, say, 37 minutes which were lost.
• X overs per day must be bowled (barring lost play) and there's the scheduled six hours plus an extra half-hour in which to get these in - but if play is delayed you can add an additional (up to) half-hour.

What I want to know was - when was the rule first used? I'm presuming sometime in the 1980s. Though if anyone knows of any other permutations that it's covered (not inclusive of the provision for, say, 20 overs having been lost on the opening two days which can then be made-up on the third and fourth) that'd be welcome too.

 

[roseboy64]

AFAIK came about as a result of the WI 4 prong attack. Deliberately wasted time along with the fact that they were pacers.

 

[roseboy64]

Needs some tinkering IMO. This is just silly.

 

[Richard]

Yeah it did, was just wondering when it did. Could've been anywhere between about 1980 and 1988.

 

[slugger]

if 90 overs must be achieved.. but stll every now and then not.. all you need to do is have two overs bowled at the same end.. this would reduce the time of setting up fields etc,, after the normal every over...

if it takes a minute to organise between overs thats a total of 1 and a half hours of no play (no action)

if we use the 2 overs played at the same end.. and say it will take half the time to set fields etc.. if you have to pace bowlers on the field set up isnt going to vary much..

that 30 seconds between overs.. thats 45 minutes of no action..
im pretty sure 90 overs would be bowled no matter what..

its outragers an 1 and half is dead time..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It was first introduced in England in 1982 for the First Test between England and India at Lords. At that time it was 96 overs that had to be bowled in a day. At first it had the desired effect and play that summer rarely went more than half an hour over. Initially there were no fines for non bowling of overs in the allotted time. When the West Indies came in 1984 they were quite happy to stay out there as long as necessary and didn't speed up their rate at all. I remember leaving Lords at 7.40pm on one occasion during that series. Outside of England it was not really so effective a regulation as there wasn't enough daylight to ensure that you would get the minimum overs in so captains could still manipulate it to their advantage. This is why we now have fines and overs being made up on subsequent days. Unless they actually set aside 10 days per match and they have to carry on until a minimum of 450 overs have been bowled it's always going to be open to abuse.

 

[atisha_ro]

there was this talk some months ago... and we came up with the idea of a 25-run penalty per session if the mandatory 30 overs are not bowled. Richard may remember it.

 

[Manee]

I am against the idea of run penalties. I feel that it cheapens the contest.

 

[Richard]

It's not ideal, but surely it should be fairly clear that fines are not doing the job adaquetely. It's rare these days to see even 15 overs an hour bowled, in a time when long run-ups are rare. The problem currently is simple lack of urgency. Run penalties would concentrate fielders' minds wonderfully IMO.

 

[andruid]

Maybe instead of making the fines apply to the overall match fee the guilty captain should lose his entire match fee for whatever session does not meet a set agreed upon minimum rate.

 

[Richard]

I'm fairly convinced the captain could be fined twice his match-fee (not that that'd be legally acceptible I'd guess) and it still wouldn't see much improvement TBH.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Fining the captains is meaningless. Any fines incurred by any member of the team for whatever reason are shared amongst the rest of the players and the impact on each individual is minimal.

 

[howardj]

1 year suspension per each over that is not bowled.

 

[NZTailender]

Like a bit of statutory myself

 

[biased indian]

Section J 5 of the ICC code of conduct states that

c The referee having determined, at the end of a Test or ODI the over-rates applicable, in the event of the over rate being below that required by ICC Regulations in force from time to time the Referee shall (subject to Section J 4 (b) above) impose the following sanctions at the end of the match:

i for each of the first 5 overs short of the minimum overs required 5% of each player's match fee in the fielding side, in the case of the captain the amount shall be 10% of the match fee;

ii for the sixth and any subsequent over short of the minimum overs required 10% of each player's match fee in the fielding side, in the case of the captain the amount shall be 20% of the match fee;

iii if the over rate is more than 5 overs short of the minimum overs required in a Test or more than 2 overs in an ODI , the captain will in addition to sanctions imposed in accordance with (i) and (ii) be charged under C1 of the Code of Conduct, conduct contrary to the spirit of the game, on the basis of time wasting. (Level 2 offence)

 

[biased indian]

Level 3
Repeat of any Level 2 Offence within 12 months.

[edit] Level 4
Repeat for any Level 3 Offence within 12 months

Level 1: Fine- 0% to 50% of match fee.
Level 2: Fine- 50% to 100% of match fee; Ban- 1 Test or 2 ODIs.
Level 3: Ban- 2 to 4 Tests or 4 to 8 ODIs.
Level 4: Ban- 5 Tests to Life or 10 ODIs to life.
Fines in Level 3 and 4 Offences are determined by the ICC without regard to match fee. Also, offences relating to gambling or match-fixing carry penalties of bans from 12 months to life, and also unlimited fines. If an offence occurred in a Test match, then the ban for a number of Tests applies. If an offence occurred in an ODI, then the ban for a number of ODIs applies.

So if you r team does it again with in a year you can get banned ....

 

[biased indian]

but the problem i think is some time ICC is soft on the time wasting thing...

 

[Smudge]

Like a bit of statutory myself

I would be more frustrated by the slow over-rates if there weren't so many results in tests nowadays.

 

[Richard]

Just think how many there might be if there weren't slow over-rates.

Why, just because something is of a high standard, not strive to improve the problems which still exist within it?