“We’ve had some bookings in previous games but it’s something we’ve discussed,” U.S. coach Stuart Law said.
Siddharth Monga
The USA became the first team to be penalised under the new stop-clock rule, introduced to speed up the pace of T20I matches.
At a crucial stage in India’s chase in New York, they were penalised – a penalty imposed when a fielding team fails to start their next over within one minute of the completion of three previous overs during their innings.
At the start of the 16th over of their T20 World Cup group match, India needed 35 runs and found themselves in a difficult position on a tough batting pitch, but after penalties they were reduced to 30 runs off 30 balls. India went on to beat the USA by seven wickets with 10 balls to spare.
The stop clock to increase the over rate became a permanent feature in men’s ODIs and T20Is from June 1. The relevant rules state: “The clock is used to regulate the time between overs. If the bowling team is not ready to bowl the next over within 60 seconds of the completion of the previous over, a five-run penalty will be assessed for the third time in the innings.”
The trial of playing conditions has had encouraging results in terms of over rates. “The results of the stop-clock trial have been submitted to the Chief Executive Committee (CEC) and have demonstrated that a time saving of approximately 20 minutes has been achieved per ODI match,” the ICC said while ratifying the rules on limited overs in men’s international cricket. During the trial period, no team exceeded the one-minute limit between overs three times in an innings, marking the first time that a five-point penalty has been imposed for this infringement.
Umpires were seen explaining what had happened to Aaron Jones, who was USA’s stand-in captain in the absence of the injured Monank Patel.
The loss meant that the USA needed to win or fail to score in their final match against Ireland to advance to the Super Eights. If they failed to pick up any points in the final match, their chances of advancement could depend on their net run rate. India secured their place in the Super Eights with three wins from three matches.
The penalty wasn’t a surprise to the Americans.
“Yes, we’ve talked about it,” US coach Stuart Law said in the post-match press conference. “We’ve had some warnings in previous games and we’ve been talking about finishing those exchanges between the overs quicker. It’s one thing we can improve on. I think we’re still a fledgling team and we’ve got a lot to learn.”
“A cricket match incorporates not only the cricket aspect but other complex factors as well. [among the players]This is a rule that was only recently introduced. A lot of our players probably hadn’t even heard of it until they played in the Bangladesh series earlier this year and the Canada series. So this is something that needs to be addressed, something that we need to sit down and talk about, but it can be improved.”
Low said the officials had warned the U.S. player twice before awarding the penalty.
“The players know the rules but it’s very hard to get it into your brain when you haven’t played for a long time,” Law said. “The information we got from the referee was that the players got two clear warnings and it was up to the players to react to that. And we didn’t react early enough, we didn’t react well enough. It’s an issue we can address.”
What teams should learn from this match is that Lowe did not take the blame for the defeat even though it was a crucial moment. He said it did not affect his players as they ended up scoring just five runs in the 40-over match.
“As many people say, it didn’t affect the outcome of the game, but giving up five runs was crucial at the time. But then again, instead of finishing it in the 18th inning, it could have gone until the 19th or 20th inning.”Stuart Law
“I don’t think it affected the outcome of the game,” he said. “Five points wasn’t going to affect the outcome of the game so I don’t think it was upsetting. [the players]No, I think we stuck to our guns, we fought hard, we fought to the death, and I think we showed great mentality against one of the best teams in the world.”
Low has no problem with the ICC trying to speed up the game. Asked whether such measures would diminish the quality of cricket, he said: “I think pace is necessary. To stretch a match that should be over in three-and-a-half hours for four-and-a-half hours is a bit much. The ICC is there to set rules and regulations. We as coaches and teams are there to follow those rules and regulations.”
“If there are enough voices saying it might be taking the excitement out of the game, the ICC will address it. I don’t see it as a bad thing, I see it as a good thing. It keeps the game moving. When you have momentum, you want to keep that momentum going faster and put the other team under pressure.”
“So it doesn’t matter. It didn’t affect the outcome of the game, as a lot of people say. But losing those five runs was crucial. But then again, maybe we could have held on until the 19th or 20th inning instead of finishing at the 18th.”
Siddharth Monga is a senior writer at ESPNcricinfo.