So, am I alone in finding the farce of the 2nd ODI between England and New Zealand an annoyance? Sadly, I firmly believe that this could have been avoided. If you consult the Laws of the game along with the ODI Regulations, there does not appear to be a requirement for a Tea interval at all - there is a provision in the Law that allows the captains to agree to forgo a Tea interval. Since I'm something of and bitter, twisted and angry man, I've written to the ICC, the MCC (the guardians of the Laws) and the 2 cricket boards expressing my opinions and reasons for them. I wonder if I ever get a reply. Below is the email sent. I will follow up with any replies of interest!
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write with a query over actions and comments made regarding the, sad
to say, farce that resulted in the No Result in yesterday's ODI
between England and New Zealand.
This email is being sent to the ICC as the governing body, the MCC as
the guardians of the Laws of the game, and the Boards of the teams
involved.
As you will no doubt be aware, this match was seriously curtailed due
to the less than ideal weather conditions at the ground. This, I
understand, is unavoidable. However, the main argument has arisen over
the 30 minute "Tea" interval that was taken. It is my belief, given my
understanding of the Laws of the game and the current regulations
covering ODIs that this interval was not necessary.
My argument for this is based on Law 15 of the current Code. The ODI
Regulations state that Law 15 shall apply, but with changes to points
15.5 and 15.9; however these points are not part of my query, and so I
shall refer soley to the current Code.
Law 15.2(b) states:
In a one-day match no specific time need be agreed for the tea
interval. It may be agreed instead to take this interval between the
innings.
Based on this, I would argue that the interval in this match should be
classed as "Tea" which brings Law 15.10 into play, which states:
At any time during the match, the captains may agree to forgo the tea
interval or any of the drinks intervals. The umpires shall be informed
of the decision.
Therefore, may I ask why it is that this sounds like it was never
considered? From reported comments, I get the impression the captains
believed that a 30 minute interval was required by the Regulations;
when it seems clear that this was not the case given the wider Law.
Whilst I acknowledge that it is for the Captains to agree to, was this
course of action ever suggested by the Match Referee?
I would consider the fact that the captains may not have thought the
weather would have become an issue again; however the comments almost
suggest that Paul Collingwood would have been open to the idea of not
having a tea interval. I would quote the paragraph:
"When it is a shortened game we thought we were going to be back out
in 10 or 15 minutes but that's the regulation so maybe it can be
looked at," Collingwood admitted.
taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1
as further proof of this. Sadly, I have not been able to locate any
comment from Daniel Vettori on this matter.
Essentially, this is a match that, had the full Laws of the game been
considered, would have had a high probability of a result. As it
stands, the situation looks, and has been described as, a farce; and
sadly this will reflect badly on the sport as a whole.
I would appreciate any clarification on points I am incorrect about,
or what action will be taken to ensure that a repeat of this situation
does not happen again and tarnish the reputation of this great game.
Regards,
Neil
UPDATE: 2008-06-19T11:47
And so the ECB win the award for first to reply. Sadly, I (more-or-less) wholeheartedly disagree with them.
Their reply indicates that the Playing Regulations over-ride the Law. This is true, but only to an extent. The Regulations only alter part of Law 15, as explained in my reply to them:
Thank you for the prompt response, however I feel I must disagree wtih your comment;
"the Playing Conditions (Regulations) over-ride Law so it is those that take precedence."
The document you refer to, which I did consult prior to writing my email clearly states with regard to Law 15:
"Law 15 shall apply subject to the following:"
This, I believe, clearly states that the rest of Law 15 applies but with the changes to Laws 15.5 and 15.9 only. Therefore, the rest of Law 15 still applies, including Law 15.10
Is it the case that the Regulations have been badly written and in fact alter the Laws in a way that was not intended (i.e. what it means to say is that Law 15 shall be replaced with:")?
So let's see what they say to that!
UPDATE: 2008-06-19T11:55
I think I touched a nerve:
the clause "Where more than 60 minutes of actual playing time has been
lost (playing time lost less any extra time provided) the interval will
be reduced to 30 minutes" overrides anything previously set down
anywhere in that relation in Law 15
as we said, this is something that we'll be raising with ICC
They clearly forgot Law 15.10 when they wrote the alterations to Law in the Playing Regulations. I wonder how a lawyer would interpret the Playing Regulations!?!
UPDATE: 2008-06-19T13:46
And the MCC's Laws person has replied, and said, as I expected, that they aren't really in a position to comment on the ICC's Regulations and their effect on the Laws.
Kudos for taking the time to reply though :)