Published: Jun 30, 2011, 12:11 PM (IST)
Edited: Aug 21, 2014, 07:38 PM (IST)
By Nishad Pai Vaidya
In Part One, we had a look at two recommendations made by the ICC Chief Executives’ Committee to make One-Day Internationals (ODIs) more interesting. In Part Two, we will have a look at two other recommendations:
1. Runners shall not be permitted to the batsmen in any situation.
2. A captain would be suspended after two over-rate breaches made in a year (The current limit is three breaches).
The runners rule seems to have arguments on both sides and it is important to view this matter very objectively. Whereas, the reduction of the limit for the over-rate breaches from three to two is a very positive move as captains would be more careful with their over-rates as they wouldn’t like to be banned at any stage.
Abolition of the runners rule
A runner is a luxury which is used by an injured batsman who wants to prolong his stay in the middle. However, on quite a few occasions the batsman opting for the runner has had the unfair advantage as he would just have to stand his ground and stroke the ball around the park leaving his running to somebody else. Who can forget Saeed Anwar’s 194 against India at Chennai in 1997! The match report in Wisden Almanac 1998 states that Anwar suffered from “heat exhaustion and loss of fluid.” As a result Shahid Afridi came on to run for him in the 19th over of the game. Thus, Anwar used a runner for majority of his innings and went on to break the record for the highest score by any batsman in ODIs. The point to be noted is that in the same match, the centurion for India, Rahul Dravid used a runner for two overs but had to do away with that help when the Pakistan team objected!
Fast forward to 2009, England and South Africa were locking horns for survival in the ICC Champions Trophy. Graeme Smith anchored South Africa’s stiff pursuit of 324 and had crossed his hundred when he required a runner following an attack of cramps. Andrew Strauss, the England captain, objected to Smith using a runner and later justified it by saying: “After a long innings, you’re going to be tired. Cramping to a certain extent is a preparation thing. To a certain extent, it’s a conditioning thing. I didn’t feel that he merited having a runner at any stage. My personal view is that you shouldn’t get a runner for cramps. Full stop.”
When this incident took place, the fielding captain had a say in the allotment of a runner to a batsman, but this was modified later on leaving the decision completely to the umpires. Thus, early this year when Australia and England squared off at Sydney, Michael Clarke, the Australian captain, wasn’t happy when the umpires decided to allow Jonathan Trott a runner. The point to be noted is that Trott suffered from cramps and Clarke later on said that he didn’t think that a batsman should be allowed a runner if he suffered from cramps.
When you look at the recommendation which bans runners at the international level and keep the above-mentioned incidents in mind, you would get the feeling that banning runners is an extreme solution to the problem. Instead, what Strauss and Clarke suggested makes more sense. A batsman shouldn’t be allowed a runner for a cramp, loss of fluids etc. They can go off the field, have a few drinks and come back whenever a wicket falls. But, if a batsman gets physically injured like twisting an ankle, spraining a back etc. awarding a runner should be fair as this is a physical injury and was acquired while playing. Such injuries can happen due to some accidents on the field but cramping is related to physical fitness and stamina. Sometimes, the conditions may be harsh and may lead to a batsman losing fluids but that is where the test of fitness comes. Whereas, when injuries occur on the field while the game is in progress, the batsman can be allowed the runner because in such situations there is no other solution. When a batsman cramps he can recharge after having a few drinks.
Thus, if there is a genuine physical injury then allowing a runner should be justified but for a cramp there should be no excuse. The ICC has to keep this in mind before finalizing this recommendation. It would certainly make sense to bring this restriction instead of banning the runner system completely. On a humorous note, wouldn’t we miss the confusion in the running if runners are banned?
Reduction of the limit to two over-rate breaches for banning a captain
Currently, if a captain is responsible for three over-rate breaches in a year, he is banned for a certain number of games. Reducing this limit to two is a very positive sign as captains would be more cautious with their over-rates and would be wary of wasting time.
With the limit at three, after one breach a captain would still feel a little comfortable as he would have two more as a cushion. Now, if the limit is reduced to two, after one breach a captain may say “Oh, I got to be careful, one more and I am out for a few games.” Thus this would add a bit of cautiousness in the minds of captains.
In part one, four recommendations were mentioned, but two more have come to the fore. The Executives Committee has recommended the legalizing of “Mankading” and a change in the obstructing the field rule whereby a batsman can be adjudged out if he comes in between the throw and the stumps. In part three we shall have a look at these suggestions.
(Nishad Pai Vaidya, a 20-year-old law student, is a club and college-level cricketer. His teachers always complain, “He knows the stats and facts of cricket more than the subjects we teach him.”)
