DOUBLE PUNISHMENT?
I like the new idea of penalising the captain if the overs don't get bowled in time. This means that it is not just the team bowling first that will get the stick, like it used to be.
However, in calculating the extra time taken, the match referee should take into consideration the extras as well. i.e, if the team bowled 30 extra deliveries, then the time considered should be the ideal one for 55 overs. The reasons are -
a) The captain should be punished if he took time in arranging the field etc. But the captain can't do much about wides and no balls being bowled.
b) The bowler and his team are already penalised for the extra deliveries by giving a run to the batting team. So penalising the captain again would amount to double punishment.
So I feel that the warning given to Inzamam after the first ODI was unfair. The ICC needs to do something about this rule.
I like the new idea of penalising the captain if the overs don't get bowled in time. This means that it is not just the team bowling first that will get the stick, like it used to be.
However, in calculating the extra time taken, the match referee should take into consideration the extras as well. i.e, if the team bowled 30 extra deliveries, then the time considered should be the ideal one for 55 overs. The reasons are -
a) The captain should be punished if he took time in arranging the field etc. But the captain can't do much about wides and no balls being bowled.
b) The bowler and his team are already penalised for the extra deliveries by giving a run to the batting team. So penalising the captain again would amount to double punishment.
So I feel that the warning given to Inzamam after the first ODI was unfair. The ICC needs to do something about this rule.
