The International Cricket Council seems to have developed the knack for inviting the wrath of cricket statisticians. In recent times its every single decision having an impact on cricket statistics has not gone well with statisticians the world over. Its latest decision with respect to rain-abandoned international matches has only made statisticians more furious.

The ninth match in the recently-concluded NatWest Series, scheduled to be played between New Zealand and West Indies at The Rose Bowl, Southampton on July 8, 2004, had to be abandoned because of rain, without a ball being bowled, after the toss was made.

There have been more than 40 instances of a One-day International being abandoned in this fashion in the past (in some cases the toss was also made), but none of these were counted for the purpose of statistics. So statisticians were flabbergasted when the abandoned NatWest series match was granted 'official' status and Darren Sammy was shown to have made his ODI debut for the West Indies!

The ICC issued a statement on July 9 mentioning that the match was granted official status on the basis of a new ruling imposed by the ICC. It was also revealed that the ruling came into existence following a recommendation from the ICC Cricket Committee (CC), chaired by Sunil Gavaskar, which was approved by the ICC Chief Executive Committee (CEC) at its meeting at Lord's on June 30, 2004.

Now, why are statisticians so vocal against the new ruling?

Because it defies logic and is also at odds against the Laws of Cricket.

How?

Let us have a look at the ruling. It reads: "All future Test and ODI matches (including those ODI matches where the playing conditions provide that the match may be replayed on the reserve day) that are abandoned without a ball being bowled shall be included in the records provided the toss has taken place."

In simple words, the ruling informs us that a match starts when the toss is made. So, if a match is washed out after the toss, it is counted as a match for stats purposes, whereas if it is washed out without the toss being made it does not count.

Now, take a look at the Laws of Cricket (2000). They are quite clear about when a match starts.

According to Law 12.4 the toss occurs at least 15 minutes before the start of a match. This means that the match has not started just because the toss has occurred. Therefore, the toss does not signal the start of a match.

Thus, it is clear that the toss cannot be considered as the start of a game. It is only part of preparation for a match, like the appointment of umpires.

Law 16.1 is very simple and clear about the commencement of a match. It states: 'The umpire at the bowler's end shall call "Play" at the start of the match and on the resumption of play after any interval or interruption.' 

In the Wisden Laws of Cricket 2000 by Don Oslear (one of the people on the committee who drafted the 2000 version), on page 75, the author states: "Under the 2000 code, the start of a match is the moment that the umpire at the bowler's end calls 'play'."

What could be simpler than that?

To change a law that has stood for years on the basis of a decision of a non-elected committee of the ICC is nonsense. How can the ICC impose a ruling, which is against its own laws?

Now there is also talk about doing away with the toss, and giving the visiting side the choice of innings. Where do we stand then?

Let us examine, how this ruling defies the logic.

Firstly, it takes into account only the matches played after June 30, 2004 and not previous such cases. There was the situation that had there been a toss in the first ODI of the recent NatWest series (there wasn't) then two identical matches in the same competition would have been treated differently because one occurred before June 30 and one afterwards.

Secondly, and quite amazingly, the ICC's statement says the ruling applies to international cricket only. What would happen if there is a totally abandoned Test match in which the toss is made? 

Going by ICC's ruling, a player could have a match in his Test record and not in the First Class record for the same game. Absurd, isn't it?

Indeed, commonsense does not seem to be part of the ICC's vocabulary when dealing with statistical matters. Just a few weeks ago we were told that Hong Kong's matches in the Asia Cup will not have full ODI status, but they have been recently upgraded to full ODI status.

After announcing the schedule for the Australia versus Rest of the World matches, it was reported that the ICC is thinking of granting the matches official Test status. When it was pointed out that these matches cannot be treated as Tests since a Test match can only be played between two full members of the ICC, as per its own definition of Test status, the governing body took a U-turn and said the 'Super series', as the matches have been billed, would not be official Tests (and indeed not even First-Class).

Every now and then the ICC comes up with some strange rulings, never taking in to consideration the plight of statisticians. In recent times it has only provided more problems than the solutions, at least for statisticians, be it the issue of first class matches of 'rebel' teams in South Africa or granting official status to Bangladesh's one-day matches in 1985-86, or allowing two Australian teams to participate in the 1994-95 World Series Cup, giving official status to matches played by both teams initially  (a decision which had to be revoked later after protests by statisticians).

Bill Frindall, the world's most famous cricket statistician, had this to say about ICC's working: "I do not approve of this ICC ruling as it flouts both the Laws of Cricket and logic. Committees have to justify their existence - and expenses - and need to produce something. Compared with some of their banalities, this latest exhibit of ICC arrant nonsense is fairly trivial."

Statisticians are bound by the ICC with respect to the way records are maintained. But there is growing concern among them with the ICC taking such foolhardy decisions without realizing the repercussions they can have on the game. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians once refused to accept the ICC's ruling to disregard the South African rebel matches. All the performances of these matches are still being taken into account of concerned players' first-class career records against the ICC's instructions. One can only hope that this will not be the case this time and the ridiculous ruling on the NatWest series match will be changed.

Think of poor Darren Sammy, who became first player ever to have 'played' a match without having stepped on to the ground. What pride can he take from this debut?