Cricket: When a one-dayer is not over even when the last ball is bowled

By RICHARD BOOCK

The world's most exciting one-day internationals are in danger of ending in confusion after cricket's latest attempts to crack down on slow over-rates.

Among a raft of recent changes to the ODI's playing conditions is a plan to impose a six-run penalty for each over of an innings not bowled by the scheduled time.

The move is apparently in response to the increasing number of ODI innings which run into overtime, and will replace the seemingly ineffectual monetary fines which have been traditionally imposed.

However, the six-run penalty clause - initially proposed by the England Cricket Board - could leave a result in doubt until after the match referee considers the various arguments for and against a time penalty, and finally makes a decision.

This means that in a closely-contested match, the crowd might watch one side successfully defend their total in the last over, only to discover 20 minutes later that the result has been reversed.

Consider this hypothetical situation: Pakistan need five runs off the last over to beat India in front of 100,000 highly-charged fans at Calcutta.

India start the over a minute past the scheduled deadline, but successfully defend the total, to the unbridled delight of the Eden Gardens crowd.

However, just as the jubilant home supporters are pouring out on to the Calcutta streets, the ground announcer proclaims that India have incurred a penalty and that - actually - Pakistan have won.

New Zealand's national umpiring manager Brian Aldridge said he had not been able to clarify the issue with the ICC's playing committee, but was confident that confusion over the result would be avoided.

"I'm sure the committee has considered all the effects of the condition and will have a plan in place to avoid having two different results," he said.

The committee also approved an Australian proposal to allow bowlers to deliver one bouncer an over, but rejected another Australian plan to introduce a disciplinary card system.

Aldridge said New Zealand had not supported the card system because they believed the necessary disciplinary tools were already available to umpires.

"We feel that, with the present rules and the five-run penalties now available, we don't need another system," he said.

"From an umpiring point of view, we don't want to become referees.

"We're only there to administer the game on behalf of the players - we're not there to control it."

The rule changes, which are to be implemented on September 1 and will apply for New Zealand's test and one-day matches in Pakistan, also include the introduction of a standard points format for one-day international tournaments comprising more than two teams, and the mandatory use of lights during test matches.

However, New Zealand's campaign for umpires to be offered more technological assistance received a setback.

The committee decided against extending the use of television technology as an umpiring aid, mainly because the ICC was in the process of forming a new elite umpiring panel and wanted to assess the effects of that before making any further changes.

Aldridge admitted the decision was a disappointment, as New Zealand "only wanted to protect our umpire's credibility" by offering them the same information as a television viewer.

The committee chairman and former Indian captain Sunil Gavaskar said the issue was not closed, however, and would be re-visited in the future.

"This decision does not mean that the game is rejecting the extension of TV-based technology in the long term," he said.

"The committee will review the matter on a regular basis, rather than considering it every three years as per other playing regulations."