It's black and white

Prem Panicker

Or maybe, in these times of political correctness, that headline should read 'chalk and cheese'.

But seriously, did you guys read this bit of news?

Apparently Pakistan has launched yet another inquiry, this time into a few of Pakistan's games in the 1999 World Cup. But what is especially intriguing is the mention in there that the probe was sparked by allegations levelled by none other than Dr Ali Bacher.

This, against the background of the haste with which South Africa rushed Herschelle Gibbs back into international cricket, despite that cricketer confessing to involvement in a fix.

This, against the background of a South African cricketing establishment seriously debating allowing Hansie Cronje back into the game -- a Cronje who publicly, and tearfully, confessed to his crimes.

Elsewhere, Shane Warne and Mark Waugh are exonerated for lack of evidence, as is Alec Stewart.

Is it just me, or do you too get the feeling that one part of the cricket world is trying hard to root out past crimes and punish the perpetrators, while the other part is in the heck of a hurry to give the whole thing a hasty burial?

Meanwhile, the ICC has just released its latest revisions to the rules and playing conditions relating to both Tests and ODIs -- and quite interesting the revisions are, too.

There seems, overall, to be a genuine attempt to make sure the spectator gets his money's worth -- thus, the mandatory use of lights and the decision to extend playing time on subsequent days in the event of the mandatory number of overs not being completed in a day thanks to rain or bad light or whatever.

Equally, penalising bowlers who bang the ball down in their own half of the turf will now get docked a run and have to bowl that delivery again -- and a good thing that is, too, if you consider how often situations arise where there is a regular batsman at one end and a tailender at the other, and in order to prevent the recognised batsman from getting a run and farming strike, bowlers come up with steepling bouncers you couldn't reach unless you wore wings.

The cynical placing of a packed legside field with bowlers going round the wicket and landing it a foot or two outside leg will, similarly, invite punishment.

In fact, as you go down the list of rules and amendments, you find yourself nodding along in agreement -- except at this point: "A proposal originally adopted, for the introduction of a six run penalty for each over of an ODI innings not bowled, has subsequently been removed following further discussion by the Cricket Committee-Playing."

For some time now, especially in the sub-continent, this business of dawdling in the field, taking time between overs, and failing to get through the quota in the time allotted has been a simmering issue.

The rules state that a certain number of overs have to be completed in a certain amount of time -- isn't it time the authorities told the teams that the rule means precisely what it says? And that failure to comply will entail immediate penalties?

Mind, it is not only the team bowling first that is guilty of dawdling -- if I were the captain defending a total and I knew that light and other conditions (dew, whatever) would make things harder for the chasing team in a tight game, I'd dawdle my way through the early overs, in a bid to prolong play as much as possible and get the conditions working in my favour.

It has been done in the past, it will be done again in the future, and that is why you could have wished to see a rule in there saying, righto, guys, every over that you bowl short will entail a hefty six run penalty -- not to mention the fact that you will then have to bowl the over anyway.

The one other disappointment is the freezing of technology in umpiring decisions -- but that has been discussed in this earlier episode of the Diary, so no more of that.

Meanwhile, I'm curious -- if you guys were sitting on the Cricket Committee-Playing, what rules would you introduce, and/or revise? Why?

My own personal pick would be the no-ball rule. As it stands, with the front foot rule in place, an umpire standing to a Brett Lee, say, or a Shoaib Akthar, finds that by the time the front foot has landed and he has satisfied himself that the delivery is legit, the ball has already gotten to the other end and been played -- which means that he is calling LBWs more or less blind.

In fact, in the ongoing Test series in Sri Lanka, the most remarkable factor has been the incredible number of no balls that have been bowled but not called. Makes you wonder if some umpires, at least, have decided they can't shift their vision fast enough from the bowler's foot to where the ball lands (remembering that in LBWs, the question of where the ball pitched is as crucial as where it hit). And deciding thus, have figured that they'll risk missing the no-balls and focus, instead, on getting their LBWs and snicks right.

The back foot rule, which used to be in operation before, is perfect from all counts. The umpire can make his call before the front foot has even landed and the ball been released, so he has that much more time to shift his vision. Further, the call coming earlier gives the batsman more time to punish an illegal delivery. So... why not?

But that's me -- let's hear from you.

Yesterday's diary: Too much of a good thing