• 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.

MCC New Code of Laws

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Effective from 1 Oct 2022

Copied from this link:

Law 1 – Replacement players
The introduction of a new clause, Law 1.3, explains that replacements are to be treated as if they were the player they replaced, inheriting any sanctions or dismissals that player has done in that match.

Law 18 – Batters returning when Caught
First trialled by the ECB in The Hundred at the suggestion of MCC, Law 18.11 has now been changed so that, when a batter is out Caught, the new batter shall come in at the end the striker was at, i.e. to face the next ball (unless it is the end of an over).

Law 20.4.2.12 – Dead ball
The new edition sees several changes to the Dead ball Law, the most significant of which is the calling of Dead ball if either side is disadvantaged by a person, animal or other object within the field of play.

From a pitch invader to a dog running onto the field, sometimes there is outside interference – if this is the case, and it has a material impact on the game, the umpires will call and signal Dead ball.

Law 21.4 – Bowler throwing towards striker’s end before delivery
If a bowler throws the ball in an attempt to run out the striker before entering their delivery stride, it will now be Dead ball. This is an extremely rare scenario, which has until now been called as a No ball.

Law 22.1 – Judging a Wide
In the modern game, batters are, more than ever, moving laterally around the crease before the ball is bowled.

It was felt unfair that a delivery might be called ‘Wide’ if it passes where the batter had stood as the bowler entered his/her delivery stride. Therefore, Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position.

Law 25.8 – striker’s right to play the ball
If the ball should land away from the pitch, the new Law 25.8 allows the striker to play the ball so long as some part of their bat or person remains within the pitch. Should they venture beyond that, the umpire will call and signal Dead ball. As recompense to the batter, any ball which would force them to leave the pitch will also be called No ball.

Laws 27.4 and 28.6 – Unfair movement by the fielding side
Until now, any member of the fielding side who moved unfairly, was punished only with a ‘Dead ball’ – potentially cancelling a perfectly good shot by the batter. Given the action is both unfair and deliberate, it will now see the batting side awarded 5 Penalty runs.

Law 38.3 – moving the running out of the non-striker

Law 41.16 – running out the non-striker – has been moved from Law 41 (Unfair play) to Law 38 (Run out). The wording of the Law remains the same.

Law 41.3 – No saliva
When cricket resumed following the onset of Covid-19, playing conditions were written in most forms of the game stating that applying saliva to the ball was no longer permitted. MCC’s research found that this had little or no impact on the amount of swing the bowlers were getting. Players were using sweat to polish the ball, and this was equally effective.

The new Laws will not permit the use of saliva on the ball, which also removes any grey areas of fielders eating sugary sweets to alter their saliva to apply to the ball. Using saliva will be treated the same way as any other unfair methods of changing the condition of the ball.
 

cnerd123

likes this
someone copy all the posts from the 'cricket related stuff that doesn't deserve a thread' to here plz

or delete this and infract Harsh thx
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Law 1 – Replacement players
The introduction of a new clause, Law 1.3, explains that replacements are to be treated as if they were the player they replaced, inheriting any sanctions or dismissals that player has done in that match.
I don't get this one. The replacement player inherits any sanctions or dismissals? So, if player A acted like a dick - enough to get a post match fine, but he also took a couple of wickets, then gets a concussion and player B replaces him... player B gets fined but also credited for the wickets? Surely I'm misunderstanding that.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The full document eplxaining the changes is here: https://lords-stg.azureedge.net/med...anges-to-the-laws-of-cricket-in-2022_v2_2.pdf

A few thoughts:

1: Doesn't really affect much IMO, the main advantage of getting an extra batsman for that innings remains. I don't get how it will work with some things.
18.11: I like this from an umpire's perspective. It does remove the interesting scramble for a run when a catch, but it's surprisingly hard to both watch for the catch and for the run, and your partner isn't always in a position to see.
19 and 20.4.2.12: I think this is pretty reasonable
21: makes sense but never even heard of it happening.
22: certainly a much needed change, but I expect to still see many wides down leg in limited overs matches where the ball would have been hitting the batsman flush in the knee if they hadn't shuffled across.
25.8: this'll be fun to judge. In all competitions I've played and umpired it's a no ball if it's off the cut strip and that works fine.
27.4 and 28.6: further increases the potential to cause an argument.
29: fine, more modern English
38 and 41: moving the 'Mankad' will certainly stir some emotions, but I think it's a good change.
40: definitely a good change, and should reduce some of those crease-scratching routines.
41.3: definitely don't like this. It's a long established tradition and I'd be very interested to see how well controlled the data is. I suspect things thicker sunscreens and hair gel to make a comeback. TBH I'd be fine with allowing a lot of ball tampering, but whatever.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't get this one. The replacement player inherits any sanctions or dismissals? So, if player A acted like a dick - enough to get a post match fine, but he also took a couple of wickets, then gets a concussion and player B replaces him... player B gets fined but also credited for the wickets? Surely I'm misunderstanding that.
I think it's more to do with warnings for stepping on the danger area, not being allowed to bowl because you've thrown a few beamers, not being allowed to bowl if you're banned for chucking etc
 

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
Has anybody ever actually complained about the batters crossing rule? Or is that just a rule to make the umpires lives easier?
 

cnerd123

likes this
While not a particularly difficult thing to umpire, I understand the desire to simplify the law across all levels of cricket. Whether or not a batter crossed can cause some unnecessary conflicts and drama at grassroots levels, where you don't have qualified umpires and plenty of beginners on the field.

However I think they've gotten it backwards. I would have preferred if they defaulted to the non striker immediately taking strike after a catch. That way you always get the 'better' batsman facing the ball right after a wicket, thereby eliminating the need for batsmen to cross in the first place, while also improving the standard of cricket across-the-board.

But having said that, we can't have one law for T20s and another for Tests, and it would be bizarre if the non striker takes strike immediately after an edge behind. So i suppose this is the common sense compromise.

Didn't really feel like a rule that needed changing tho. Feels like they've taken out of those little 1 percenter things that gives you an edge over your opponents if you are alert and understand the rules well enough.

Law 22.1 – Judging a Wide

In the modern game, batters are, more than ever, moving laterally around the crease before the ball is bowled.

It was felt unfair that a delivery might be called ‘Wide’ if it passes where the batter had stood as the bowler entered his/her delivery stride. Therefore, Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position.
This is the biggest change I think. Will be interesting to see how it's applied.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Has anybody ever actually complained about the batters crossing rule? Or is that just a rule to make the umpires lives easier?
It has to be an umpire's ease solution. I've literally never heard a complaint about it from players. Someone said they don't like the risk and reward being taken away from a lower batsman teeing off in the latter overs, knowing that if even if they get caught they might get a set batsman on strike...and now I agree. And really, at international level, the ability to check whether batsmen crossed as the departing batsman goes out is a lot less time consuming than DRS, no balls being called upstairs etc.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
While not a particularly difficult thing to umpire, I understand the desire to simplify the law across all levels of cricket. Whether or not a batter crossed can cause some unnecessary conflicts and drama at grassroots levels, where you don't have qualified umpires and plenty of beginners on the field.

However I think they've gotten it backwards. I would have preferred if they defaulted to the non striker immediately taking strike after a catch. That way you always get the 'better' batsman facing the ball right after a wicket, thereby eliminating the need for batsmen to cross in the first place, while also improving the standard of cricket across-the-board.

But having said that, we can't have one law for T20s and another for Tests, and it would be bizarre if the non striker takes strike immediately after an edge behind. So i suppose this is the common sense compromise.

Didn't really feel like a rule that needed changing tho. Feels like they've taken out of those little 1 percenter things that gives you an edge over your opponents if you are alert and understand the rules well enough.



This is the biggest change I think. Will be interesting to see how it's applied.
Would mean less potential hat tricks maybe. And where would you draw the line for a catch? Caught behind? Smashed to point?
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Saw someone elsewhere on the internet point out that not allowing the batsmen to cross is actually more in line with how the caught law works. If a run is completed before the catch is taken (seen this a few times) the run doesn't count. So why should the movement of the batsmen count?

There actually still is utility in running for a skied catch. If it's many club competitions or the BBL, it's odds-on that a high outfield catch will be dropped, especially if it's not straight to the fielder.

@cnerd123 that's a stupid idea.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
However I think they've gotten it backwards. I would have preferred if they defaulted to the non striker immediately taking strike after a catch. That way you always get the 'better' batsman facing the ball right after a wicket, thereby eliminating the need for batsmen to cross in the first place, while also improving the standard of cricket across-the-board.
That would be worse for multiple reasons, they definitely got it right IMO

There actually still is utility in running for a skied catch. If it's many club competitions or the BBL, it's odds-on that a high outfield catch will be dropped, especially if it's not straight to the fielder.
lmao
 

cnerd123

likes this

Stuart Broad is an idiot. It was the batter backing up before the ball was bowled that was considered unfair, hence the existence of the rule under Law 41 and not 38. The runout itself was a penalty to discourage that unfair action. It in of itself was never unfair.

How does someone play so much professional cricket and get paid for their opinion on it without even passing a cursory glance at the laws?
 

cnerd123

likes this
@cnerd123 that's a stupid idea.
You're going to have to be specific, I have many of them.

If it's about having the non-striker facing the next delivery after a caught, well yea it's really only a law that makes sense in T20s when guys are skying it to the boundary fielder. That's the situation which has made people more aware of this law, and there is a lot of T10/T20 being played all around the globe by people who don't engage with the longer formats. It doesn't really make sense otherwise, now the law is more in line with every other form of dismissal.

Not sure why the batter crossing rule existed in the first place, would be interesting to know how and why it came about.
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year

Stuart Broad is an idiot. It was the batter backing up before the ball was bowled that was considered unfair, hence the existence of the rule under Law 41 and not 38. The runout itself was a penalty to discourage that unfair action. It in of itself was never unfair.

How does someone play so much professional cricket and get paid for their opinion on it without even passing a cursory glance at the laws?
He is expressing his opinion and (as Xix2565 explains) possibly after media attention. If Broad (and many others) wish to believe a 'Mankad' is outside the spirit of the game, then they are entitled to that opinion without being called an idiot.
 

cnerd123

likes this
He is expressing his opinion and (as Xix2565 explains) possibly after media attention. If Broad (and many others) wish to believe a 'Mankad' is outside the spirit of the game, then they are entitled to that opinion without being called an idiot.
but he's actually demonstrating an ignorance of the laws as they are written. Law 41.16 is literally called "41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early". That's the part that is unfair and he's an idiot for not knowing that.
 

Xix2565

International Debutant
He is expressing his opinion and (as Xix2565 explains) possibly after media attention. If Broad (and many others) wish to believe a 'Mankad' is outside the spirit of the game, then they are entitled to that opinion without being called an idiot.
I meant more ECM along the lines of people like Agnew etc who bitch/moan/complain whenever anything remotely marginal or unacceptable according to their "understanding" of the game goes against them/happens. You usually see it more when there's umpire chat when England is touring but still it's pretty dumb in these cases.

Not that I disagree with you on possibly wanting media attention, but that's a general thing for everyone, from Warne to Vaughan and so on.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Stuart Broad is an idiot. It was the batter backing up before the ball was bowled that was considered unfair, hence the existence of the rule under Law 41 and not 38. The runout itself was a penalty to discourage that unfair action. It in of itself was never unfair.

How does someone play so much professional cricket and get paid for their opinion on it without even passing a cursory glance at the laws?
He's obviously had a cursory glance at the laws because he's aware it was already part of them.
 

Top