By Tony Becca - From The Boundary 
Tony Becca
THE INTERNATIONAL Cricket Conference has finally decided to amend the rule governing slow over-rate in limited-over matches, according to the ICC's general manager Dave Richardson, the new regulations will come into effect on April 1, and following the controversy over the years, that will not be too soon.
In limited over matches, each team bowls 50 overs. The rule, however, sets a time limit only for the team bowling first, it penalises only the team bowling first if it fails to bowl the required numbere of overs in the specified time, for years the complaint has been that the rule is not fair, and it is certainly unfair.
There can be no logical reason why the team bowling first should be penalised for wasting time and the team bowling second is not - for the simple reason that while the team bowling first cannot waste time without paying for it, the team bowling second can do so without fear of being penalised.
Apart from the fact that the rule is unfair to the team bowling first, the umpires have been inconsistent is dishing out penalties; and there have been two instances recently to prove that - one in the match between the West Indies and South Africa during the ICC Trophy tournament in Sri Lanka last September, and one between the West Indies and South Africa in the opening match of the World Cup.
In Sri Lanka, South Africa bowled first, they took 20 minutes too long to complete the 50 overs, they were penalised only one over, and they won the match off the last delivery.
In the opening match of the World Cup, South Africa bowled first against the West Indies, according to the umpires, they took 20 seconds too long to complete the 50 overs, they were penalised one over, and they lost the match by three runs.
According to Richardson, the change will eliminate the overs penalty on the team bowling first. Instead, there will be, among other things, heavier fines and a greater onus on the captains to ensure that the overs are bowled on time by both teams.
Captains could also be charged with time-wasting.
In the interest of fair play, that is a good move by the ICC.
In the interest of the game, however, there is one other move the ICC needs to make. It needs to look at the Duckworth/Lewis system used in interrupted matches and do something about it.
According to the experts, the mathematical formula of Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis is the best system - and they may be right. Apart from the fact that 99 percent of the people at a cricket match - including administrators, umpires, and players - do not understand it, it is hurting the game, and anything that hurts the game should be looked at and if at all possible, replaced.
The Duckworth/Lewis system is hurting the game, not only because the people - the spectators who pay their money to watch the games - do not understand it and are therefore confused, but also because most times, the vast majority of times, it turns a close, exciting contest into an easy one for one team and an unexciting one for the fans.
The history of limited-over cricket since the introduction of the Duckworth/Lewis system is filled with many exciting contests ending in disappointing finishes - to one team and to the fans.
For those who still do not believe so, here are two examples. In the semi-finals of the 1992 World Cup, South Africa, chasing a target of 252, were 22 short with 19 deliveries to go when the rain came. When play resumed, South Africa were left 22 to win off one delivery.
In other words, South Africa were left the same number of runs off 18 deliveries less.
In Sunday's World Cup match, New Zealand, chasing 307 off 50 overs, were 125 short with 117 deliveries to go when the rain came. When play resumed, New Zealand were left 44 to win off 51 deliveries.
In other words, while before the rain New Zealand had more runs than deliveries in order to win, after the rain they had more deliveries than runs.
On Sunday at the Wanderers, the match was nicely balanced and heading for a thrilling climax when the rain came. When the target was announced, there was a huge groan from the capacity crowd; and by the time the players took the field 15 minutes later, half the crowd was already on the way home.
That is not good for the game, and in making one change in the interest of fair play, the ICC should also make another - this time in the interest of the game.
