The match referee and the umpires who officiated the Lord’s Test are facing an avalanche of abuse from English ex-players (including ex-captains), journalists, podcasters and content creators after it was announced by the ICC that England had been docked points for a slow over-rate
Maybe they wouldn’t, but the transparency would be helpful. I understand the rules, but what we don’t know is how much time was allowed for (for example) Gill’s back massage or Crawley’s time wasting on the third day. If they published the calculations, those casting aspersions over the fairness of the process wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
We do know. We know that it was the actual time involved, and not some fixed amount of time. There is no reason to think that the third umpire cannot read a clock.
Those people haven't got a leg to stand on right now.
At some point, bad faith must no longer be accomodated and be called out.
Do you expect the match referee would have made an error in his arithmetic? Even without the 'unknowns' the decision seems very reasonable. I am sure the calculations must be available for both teams to review, so it doesn't matter whether we know the details of not!
I'm not suggesting anyone has made an error. I'm saying that the best way to stop people grumbling is just to publish the calculations. Transparency will kill all the unhelpful chatter.
I'd just point out the 9.5 and 9.6 also specify that both teams know about the over rate situation during the match. They get updated by umpires regularly. So ENG knew their over rate situation on the 5th day. Etc.
Across the course of a 5 day test match it is reasonable to expect 40 wickets to fall (80 minutes), 15 drinks breaks (1 hour) 3 change of innings (30 minutes) and there would be data on the average number of referrals per test. This would come to almost 2 sessions lost (60 overs). 390 overs over 15 sessions = 26 overs per session or 13 per hour. My maths may be off but they should, reduce the expected rate to 13 per. Hour.
No overs are actually lost. Test matches are not running out of time. They're producing results. Tests are not shortchanging anyone.
People don't read the rules. So they misunderstand the over rate. Then, based on that misunderstanding, they say that the rules are wrong. Why should nothing be demanded of all these publishers who can't be bothered to read? And why should anything be demanded of the administrators who have constructed a set of rules with all due care, and implement them diligently?
I'm not sure what to make of this insistence that the rules must be updated because people haven't read the current rules.
So that 516 mins. They bowled 119.33 overs. That is an over rate of 13.88.
Now let us deduct only 5 mins for combined injury breaks, time wasting by batting side and other circumstances not in control of bowling team. That is 511 mins.
So over rate is now 14.01.
The rule says "Any Team which has been unable to maintain the minimum over rate as defined in the WTC Playing Conditions shall incur one Penalty Over for each full over it is short of the minimum over rate requirement. A Team will have one (1) point deducted from its points total for each Penalty Over it incurs during the Round Stage."
So for one point penalty, England's over rate should been 14 or below. But we have seen that their overrate is above 14.
So pray tell why England were docked any points, let alone 2 points?
And if the interpretation is that one point is to be deducted for each over short in the match and not each over short per hour, I would like to see the reconciliation to how England lost 2 points and not 3 points or 1 point. Because this article tells us that this is possible by looking at the scorecard.
Even accepting your assumptions entirely, the math point in response to your arithmetic would be - if your assumptions lead you to 14.01, then what is the probability that the correct answer is 14.00 or less? If your estimate shows 14.01, then mathematically, it points to the opposite conclusion to the one you have reached.
But mostly, your basic assumption is wrong. Being "one over short" means having bowled 1 over less than they would have bowled if they had met the over-rate requirement assuming all accomodations due in that innings upto that point. Not one over per hour less. This is how teams are informed by the umpires that they are behind the over rate during the innings.
The 14.01 assumption is with a very very conservative estimate of 5 mins lost to injury. So the chance of it being 14.00 rather than being higher than 14.01 is minimal. Now let us assume it is indeed 14. Then why were 2 points deducted and not 1?
Now if we assume it is one over in the match short and not one over per hour, let us look at the wording.
"...for each full over it is short of the minimum over rate requirement..." What is the "over rate requirement"? It is 15. What is one over short of that? 14. So if they meant one over short per match (which I actually they do) then it is extraordinarily shoddy framing of the rules. So your contention that the rules have been framed well is incorrect.
Let us put that aside. Let us go back to scorecards and calculations. Your contention is that it is trivial from publicly available data to conclude that the penalty applied to England and the penalty not applied to England is fair. So show that. From the publicly available data, do show that India's overrate across the match is at least 15. Also do show that England were two overs short and not more or less than that. If you are not able to show that, then people questioning the penalty are doing absolutely the right thing.
WTC points are at stake here and the onus is on the authorities to show that they are being fair. There is no reason for the fans to take the calculations of a faceless committee made behind closed doors at face value. That is not how top level sport is supposed to work.
To summarise, one interpretation of the rule means that ICC got it wrong. Another interpretation of the rule means that your calculations did not help at all.
An over-rate of 14.0 overs per hour would put a team 6 overs behind after 6 hours, 7 overs behind after 7, and so on (after all allowances had been made). Not one over behind. It doesn't say "one over per hour behind the minimum over rate" (this is the obvious symmetrical semantic counterpoint to your marginal point).
The third umpire informs the teams about how far behind they are in terms of the number of whole overs. This is what allows teams to catch up. If this information he was providing was in terms of the over-rate, it would be progressively useless, since making up an over-rate of 1 over per hour after 85 overs is significantly (nearly impossibly) more difficult than making up an over-rate of 1 over per hour after 18 overs. Its not a shoddy framing of the rules.
What you're doing is treating the rules like a menu from which you pick a stray phrase and interpret it to the exclusion of everything else. Its also what you do with your 14.01 thing. For instance, if you consider 10 minutes instead of 13 for the DRS reviews and the injury breaks, you come down to 13.9.
People questioning the penalty without doing to calculation which I have demonstrated are being abusive. Because questioning the penalty is questioning the competence/integrity of the umpires/referee.
There is no reasonable discourse in which the presumption of guilt and the presumption of innocence are symmetrical propositions. You are demanding that both be treated symmetrically. That the idle accusation of dishonesty/incompetence and idle presumption of sincerity/competence are both exactly equally reasonable presumptions. They are not. The former is abusive, the latter is just basic self-awareness.
A discourse in which the two are symmetrical propositions disincentivizes good faith inquiry.
Its not going to happen here. It should not happen in any reasonable place.
Another reasonable way to do the calculation is as follows:
If we consider the fixed deductions only, then how many more minutes would have been deducted for all the other types of delays combined for the team to achieve an over rate of 15 overs per hour?
For IND:
47 minutes would have to be deducted over the course of the match over 799 minutes. That is, ~3.5 minutes per hour of play.
For ENG:
97 minutes would have to be deducted over the course of the match over 922 minutes. That is, ~6.3 minutes per hour of play.
If only ENG's 1st innings is considered, then 56 minutes would have to be deducted over 556. That is, ~6.0 minutes per hour.
It is not reasonable to conclude that either both India and England should have been penalized, or neither.
Relevant information that is not available publicly include time lost to: a) reviews, b) injury, c) batsmen wasting time, d) all other circumstances outside the control of the bowling team, such as ball changes. Over the course of a match, the sum of above adds up to several 10s of minutes. And there can and does exist a wide range of total time lost to above factors across innings' and matches. So when the penalty is one point per 4 minutes, there is no way to determine with reasonable confidence that the number of points deducted are fair and accurate.
Institutions need to build trust by providing transparency and accountability. Trust is not something that can be demanded as a right.
And this is not a difficult problem to solve either. Have a live stopwatch clock that is paused each time there is a disruption in play that is not in the control of the bowling team. It is as simple as that.
When several WTC points are at stake, it is both natural and right that fans demand transparency.
Right, but its the same umpires and referees performing the same calculating in every match. Is there reason to believe that they will be capricious enough to apply the rules inconsistently?
This idle presumption of inconsistency is not natural. It is not reasonable. It is not a good faith presumption. What's more, its not going to be satisfied by more information.
No amount of information is going to be enough to satisfy people who are going to raise doubts in bad faith. Flat-earthers are not denialists because they lack information.
For instance - "I think the umpires are bent/incompetent because they have made this decision which adversely affects the fortunes of the team I support" is an accusation made in bad faith, because its basis lies in partisanship.
The ICC could stop all this talk by simply publishing their calculations
Why will people who can't be bothered to read the published rules read the published calculations?
Maybe they wouldn’t, but the transparency would be helpful. I understand the rules, but what we don’t know is how much time was allowed for (for example) Gill’s back massage or Crawley’s time wasting on the third day. If they published the calculations, those casting aspersions over the fairness of the process wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
We do know. We know that it was the actual time involved, and not some fixed amount of time. There is no reason to think that the third umpire cannot read a clock.
Those people haven't got a leg to stand on right now.
At some point, bad faith must no longer be accomodated and be called out.
Do you expect the match referee would have made an error in his arithmetic? Even without the 'unknowns' the decision seems very reasonable. I am sure the calculations must be available for both teams to review, so it doesn't matter whether we know the details of not!
I'm not suggesting anyone has made an error. I'm saying that the best way to stop people grumbling is just to publish the calculations. Transparency will kill all the unhelpful chatter.
And it would aid the understanding of the more casual fan. Because to the naked eye it looked like both teams were guilty of slow play.
I'd just point out the 9.5 and 9.6 also specify that both teams know about the over rate situation during the match. They get updated by umpires regularly. So ENG knew their over rate situation on the 5th day. Etc.
Excellent analysis! Unfortunately when prejudice kicks in, logic is the first victim..
Across the course of a 5 day test match it is reasonable to expect 40 wickets to fall (80 minutes), 15 drinks breaks (1 hour) 3 change of innings (30 minutes) and there would be data on the average number of referrals per test. This would come to almost 2 sessions lost (60 overs). 390 overs over 15 sessions = 26 overs per session or 13 per hour. My maths may be off but they should, reduce the expected rate to 13 per. Hour.
No overs are actually lost. Test matches are not running out of time. They're producing results. Tests are not shortchanging anyone.
People don't read the rules. So they misunderstand the over rate. Then, based on that misunderstanding, they say that the rules are wrong. Why should nothing be demanded of all these publishers who can't be bothered to read? And why should anything be demanded of the administrators who have constructed a set of rules with all due care, and implement them diligently?
I'm not sure what to make of this insistence that the rules must be updated because people haven't read the current rules.
“Test matches are not running out of time. They're producing results. Tests are not shortchanging anyone.”
Maybe that should be the starting point of regulation? Slow over rates are only to be considered in the event of a drawn match?
Its not obvious that the over rates are "slow". Is there any justification beyond "I think they're slow" for describing over rates as slow?
Let us do the math.
England took 556 mins.
Deduct 16 mins for 8 wickets.
Deduct 16 mins for 4 drink breaks.
Deduct 8 mins for 4 DRS reviews (2min assumed).
So that 516 mins. They bowled 119.33 overs. That is an over rate of 13.88.
Now let us deduct only 5 mins for combined injury breaks, time wasting by batting side and other circumstances not in control of bowling team. That is 511 mins.
So over rate is now 14.01.
The rule says "Any Team which has been unable to maintain the minimum over rate as defined in the WTC Playing Conditions shall incur one Penalty Over for each full over it is short of the minimum over rate requirement. A Team will have one (1) point deducted from its points total for each Penalty Over it incurs during the Round Stage."
So for one point penalty, England's over rate should been 14 or below. But we have seen that their overrate is above 14.
So pray tell why England were docked any points, let alone 2 points?
And if the interpretation is that one point is to be deducted for each over short in the match and not each over short per hour, I would like to see the reconciliation to how England lost 2 points and not 3 points or 1 point. Because this article tells us that this is possible by looking at the scorecard.
Please read the article. It explains why.
Even accepting your assumptions entirely, the math point in response to your arithmetic would be - if your assumptions lead you to 14.01, then what is the probability that the correct answer is 14.00 or less? If your estimate shows 14.01, then mathematically, it points to the opposite conclusion to the one you have reached.
But mostly, your basic assumption is wrong. Being "one over short" means having bowled 1 over less than they would have bowled if they had met the over-rate requirement assuming all accomodations due in that innings upto that point. Not one over per hour less. This is how teams are informed by the umpires that they are behind the over rate during the innings.
The 14.01 assumption is with a very very conservative estimate of 5 mins lost to injury. So the chance of it being 14.00 rather than being higher than 14.01 is minimal. Now let us assume it is indeed 14. Then why were 2 points deducted and not 1?
Now if we assume it is one over in the match short and not one over per hour, let us look at the wording.
"...for each full over it is short of the minimum over rate requirement..." What is the "over rate requirement"? It is 15. What is one over short of that? 14. So if they meant one over short per match (which I actually they do) then it is extraordinarily shoddy framing of the rules. So your contention that the rules have been framed well is incorrect.
Let us put that aside. Let us go back to scorecards and calculations. Your contention is that it is trivial from publicly available data to conclude that the penalty applied to England and the penalty not applied to England is fair. So show that. From the publicly available data, do show that India's overrate across the match is at least 15. Also do show that England were two overs short and not more or less than that. If you are not able to show that, then people questioning the penalty are doing absolutely the right thing.
WTC points are at stake here and the onus is on the authorities to show that they are being fair. There is no reason for the fans to take the calculations of a faceless committee made behind closed doors at face value. That is not how top level sport is supposed to work.
To summarise, one interpretation of the rule means that ICC got it wrong. Another interpretation of the rule means that your calculations did not help at all.
An over-rate of 14.0 overs per hour would put a team 6 overs behind after 6 hours, 7 overs behind after 7, and so on (after all allowances had been made). Not one over behind. It doesn't say "one over per hour behind the minimum over rate" (this is the obvious symmetrical semantic counterpoint to your marginal point).
The third umpire informs the teams about how far behind they are in terms of the number of whole overs. This is what allows teams to catch up. If this information he was providing was in terms of the over-rate, it would be progressively useless, since making up an over-rate of 1 over per hour after 85 overs is significantly (nearly impossibly) more difficult than making up an over-rate of 1 over per hour after 18 overs. Its not a shoddy framing of the rules.
What you're doing is treating the rules like a menu from which you pick a stray phrase and interpret it to the exclusion of everything else. Its also what you do with your 14.01 thing. For instance, if you consider 10 minutes instead of 13 for the DRS reviews and the injury breaks, you come down to 13.9.
People questioning the penalty without doing to calculation which I have demonstrated are being abusive. Because questioning the penalty is questioning the competence/integrity of the umpires/referee.
There is no reasonable discourse in which the presumption of guilt and the presumption of innocence are symmetrical propositions. You are demanding that both be treated symmetrically. That the idle accusation of dishonesty/incompetence and idle presumption of sincerity/competence are both exactly equally reasonable presumptions. They are not. The former is abusive, the latter is just basic self-awareness.
A discourse in which the two are symmetrical propositions disincentivizes good faith inquiry.
Its not going to happen here. It should not happen in any reasonable place.
Another reasonable way to do the calculation is as follows:
If we consider the fixed deductions only, then how many more minutes would have been deducted for all the other types of delays combined for the team to achieve an over rate of 15 overs per hour?
For IND:
47 minutes would have to be deducted over the course of the match over 799 minutes. That is, ~3.5 minutes per hour of play.
For ENG:
97 minutes would have to be deducted over the course of the match over 922 minutes. That is, ~6.3 minutes per hour of play.
If only ENG's 1st innings is considered, then 56 minutes would have to be deducted over 556. That is, ~6.0 minutes per hour.
It is not reasonable to conclude that either both India and England should have been penalized, or neither.
Relevant information that is not available publicly include time lost to: a) reviews, b) injury, c) batsmen wasting time, d) all other circumstances outside the control of the bowling team, such as ball changes. Over the course of a match, the sum of above adds up to several 10s of minutes. And there can and does exist a wide range of total time lost to above factors across innings' and matches. So when the penalty is one point per 4 minutes, there is no way to determine with reasonable confidence that the number of points deducted are fair and accurate.
Institutions need to build trust by providing transparency and accountability. Trust is not something that can be demanded as a right.
And this is not a difficult problem to solve either. Have a live stopwatch clock that is paused each time there is a disruption in play that is not in the control of the bowling team. It is as simple as that.
When several WTC points are at stake, it is both natural and right that fans demand transparency.
Right, but its the same umpires and referees performing the same calculating in every match. Is there reason to believe that they will be capricious enough to apply the rules inconsistently?
This idle presumption of inconsistency is not natural. It is not reasonable. It is not a good faith presumption. What's more, its not going to be satisfied by more information.
No amount of information is going to be enough to satisfy people who are going to raise doubts in bad faith. Flat-earthers are not denialists because they lack information.
For instance - "I think the umpires are bent/incompetent because they have made this decision which adversely affects the fortunes of the team I support" is an accusation made in bad faith, because its basis lies in partisanship.