Ah, the good old ICC. Just when you think that you have them completely figured out, they go and shift the goalposts again.

This time, they’re poised to do something no-one could have predicted – implement some sensible rule changes. Well, some of them at least.

The ICC’s Cricket Committee has made a series of recommendations that are mostly logical, well thought out and practical. Of course, they’ve thrown in a couple of head-scratchers just so we don’t keel over from the shock and there is also the obligatory show stopper, guaranteed to get the blood of cricket lovers boiling with rage.

'If there has to be some way to use "Hawkeye" because of some clandestine deal with Hewlett Packard, then restrict it to the circus element of ODIs and Twenty20'


It’s interesting that the ICC has a Cricket Committee. Here is an organisation whose sole function is to manage the game of cricket worldwide, so why is cricket reduced to the status of a sub-committee, presumably with equal status to the Gin & Tonic Perfection Committee and Tax Loophole Discovery Committee.

And, don’t forget the Turning a Blind Eye to Corruption Committee whose finding were so diabolical that Malcolm Speed was forced to do something staggeringly out of character and completely without precedent at the ICC – he resigned on principle.

But figuring out the internal structure of the ICC is beyond the capabilities of this author, so let’s stick to examining these proposed changes. Importantly, the committee concluded that, despite the popularity and prominence of ODIs and Twenty20 cricket, Test cricket should remain the pinnacle of the game and that all efforts should be made to ensure that the very best players are available to play international games.

The committee also recommended that control of one power play in one-day cricket should be given to the batting side and an extra player should be allowed outside of the circle for the second and third power plays. These are obvious moves which begs the question, “why did it take so long?” The ICC moves in mysterious (and painfully slow) ways.

The use of “comfort breaks” is to be restricted to cases where a player is injured or due to illness or other “wholly acceptable reasons”, whatever they may be. With luck, this should stamp out the annoying practice of rotating bowlers off the field and allowing a specialist fielder to take their place.

Okay, enough good news – now for the head scratchers. Currently, in the event of a tie in a one-day or Twenty20 game, results are determined by bowling at a wicket in the manner similar to a penalty shootout. It’s not ideal, but it is fair and gets a result fairly quickly. The suggestion is that this method be replaced by a one-over-per-side playoff.

Although the details are a bit sketchy, it seems a bit odd. The change of innings would end up taking longer than the innings itself, which makes it harder to maintain the excitement. Maybe five overs each would make more sense, not that making sense is a guiding principle of the ICC.

Another curious decision is the whole Test Championship concept that would periodically see the top two teams playing off against each other. Given the already choked cricket calendar that is planned years in advance, it’s hard to see how they could make this work. Besides, don’t the sides play against each other every two to three years anyway?  We also know who would always win, so why make the effort.

It is one of nature’s immutable facts that with the ICC, every silver lining has a cloud and in this case it’s a whopper. The cricket committee is recommending the limited use of technology to “assist” the umpires and to allow limited reviews of decisions to be requested by players.

The use of technology has been tried and tested in English county cricket and found to be next to useless. In the case of catches, video evidence is rarely clear enough to give a definitive answer to whether a catch has been taken cleanly. The obvious case in point is Graeme Smith’s catch off Sourav Ganguly. The video did not clarify the matter at all and so will invariably lead to not out decisions regardless of whether the catch is taken.

In the case of LBWs, the technology can tell you where the ball pitched and where it hit, but the predictive side of the technology can’t be used. There does not seem to be a recommendation to use “hotspot” thermal imaging to determine whether a ball has been edged.

The problem with players being able to question an umpires decision is that it undermines the umpire’s authority (and confidence) on the field. If the third umpire overturns his on-field partner’s decision, it affects everyone’s thinking and we saw the end result of rattled umpires in the Sydney Test match between India and Australia.

The use of technology is fine for broadcasters and armchair umpires, but let's leave it out of the game. If there absolutely has to be some way to use "Hawkeye" because of some clandestine deal with Hewlett Packard, then for goodness sake restrict it to the circus element of ODIs and Twenty20 and leave Test matches alone.

All of these recommendations now need to go before the full ICC board for approval, so there is hope that common sense will prevail.

Not much hope, given that we’re dealing with the ICC, but it’s all we can cling to.