New cricket laws in force

Press, 23 April 1980, Page 42

New cricket laws in force

NZPA London When the English firstclass cricket season opens at Lords today the game will be played under laws rewritten for only the fifth time in more than two centuries. The new laws, which officially took effect from April 1, ban the use of synthetic bats, such as the aluminium one promoted under controversial circumstances by Dennis Lillee in Australia last season. The bat, can of course, be used for practice, where it is claimed that the metal is far more durable than the traditional willow. But Law 6 has been amended by the addition of

( the words “the bat must be . made of wood for use in : matches.” ; The editor’s notes of the i new 1 y-published Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack note that manufacturers will have to experiment with filling ’ the aluminium blades with substances like cork or poly- ’ styrene to solve the problem i of excess noise when the 1 ball is struck. i The new code of laws — ’ the first redraft for 33 years — also allows for a new 1 form of dismissal whereby a 1 batsman may be given out i on appeal by the fielding ; side, should he wilfully take I more than two minutes to 1 reach the wicket.

Previously, the fielding side could have been awarded the match in such cases. Umpires now will only have to consider whether the individual is guilty of wilful delay. Any batsman given out under the new law will be entered in the scorebook as timed out. The bowler will not be given credit for the wicket. The number of laws has been reduced from 47 to 42, but the over-all length of them has increased. There are now 13 subsections to Law 42, which governs unfair play. Short-pitched deliveries

are specifically termed unfair if in the umpire’s opinion they continue intimidation of the batsman.

Fast, high full tosses are similarly dealt with.

Other controversial issues of recent years are also detailed: players showing dissent, bowlers wasting time, damage to the pitch, and the obstruction or distraction of a batsman.

Wisden also reported that there had been an inclination to ban helmets, especially for fieldsmen, but the possible legal and other repercussions if a player was injured made it inadvisable to do so.