What's new

Using floodlights to mitigate bad light during Test matches

Donal Cozzie

ODI Debutant
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Runs
9,541
Post of the Week
4
Lets face it folks, it is.

An absolutely brilliant climax and they call them off for bad light :misbah

Had they played on the game would've been over by now as well.
 
Lets face it folks, it is.

An absolutely brilliant climax and they call them off for bad light :misbah

Had they played on the game would've been over by now as well.

The sport itself is not but the Administration and the general culture are hilarious.
 
what i fail to understand, Zimbabwe a test playing nation Cricket being premier sports there, they have only one cricket ground (can't even call it a stadium) yet no floodlights ??
 
The guys running the game have the intelligence level of an ameoba
Seriously?!! You stop a game in the 49th over?! :facepalm:
 
How can umpires call off the game when batsmen have no problem with the lights. Disgraceful rules. I hope we crush these zimbos in the last odi.
 
the issue lies with Zimbabwe cricket not affording floodlights. Floodlights are an absolute must
 
Lol it was just stupid umpiring. Anyone with an iota of common sense would have let the game continue.
 
I'm sure everyone would've preferred to potentially see a fielder or batsman get hit and seriously injured by the ball due to the fact they couldn't see it...
 
The guys running the game have the intelligence level of an ameoba
Seriously?!! You stop a game in the 49th over?! :facepalm:

Umpires have parametres of judging how good the light is. Though they gave in to the Zimbabwean pressure.

Its a rare win for desperate Zimbabweans. They always come close yet bottle out. They cannot be held accountable for trying mischeivious ways to finally win it for them
 
With max 12 balls to go they should have not taken the players off. 12 balls not 12 overs.

well the rule says that if the light is not enough for a cricket match, its not enough for a cricket match. Umpires shouldn't deviate from it. This makes it all fair and harsh at the same time.

I can understand you are feeling robbed at a chance of winning the match. 2 overs was quite a thing.
 
I'm sure everyone would've preferred to potentially see a fielder or batsman get hit and seriously injured by the ball due to the fact they couldn't see it...

It was not that dark. It was a bit slippery though due to rain, but batsmen were playing pacers without any fuss
 
Umpires have parametres of judging how good the light is. Though they gave in to the Zimbabwean pressure.

Its a rare win for desperate Zimbabweans. They always come close yet bottle out. They cannot be held accountable for trying mischeivious ways to finally win it for them

Sorry but they can.
You can't use deliberate time wasting tactics to deny a team a win and then not expect them to react.
It was very poor from zimbabwe and from the umpires too!
 
well the rule says that if the light is not enough for a cricket match, its not enough for a cricket match. Umpires shouldn't deviate from it. This makes it all fair and harsh at the same time.

I can understand you are feeling robbed at a chance of winning the match. 2 overs was quite a thing.

There are margins given for their guidance, but umpires can decide on prompt. And they gave in to pressure from the home team players. Could have allowed the game to finish given that it was sightable for batsmen, who face the ball at 100-140kph
 
what i fail to understand, Zimbabwe a test playing nation Cricket being premier sports there, they have only one cricket ground (can't even call it a stadium) yet no floodlights ??

Its a bankrupt country man, they can hardly afford bread let alone floodlights.

That being said the selfish, corrupt ZCB executives who DO have money should've built floodlights and invested in the grounds by now so we wouldn't have this situation - this is why we never see D/N matches in Zimbabwe.
 
Pakistan should tell Zimbabwe point blank that if you can't maintain proper and professional level stadia with basic properties like lighting, forget us ever touring here again.

We have to risk our rankings and our players' morales for stupid "losses" like this.
 
Sorry but they can.
You can't use deliberate time wasting tactics to deny a team a win and then not expect them to react.
It was very poor from zimbabwe and from the umpires too!

Many teams waste time in tests. Don't remember Imran Tahir versus India? One can give Zimbabwe some slack.

Umpires should not have given in to the pressure though.
 
Pakistan should tell Zimbabwe point blank that if you can't maintain proper and professional level stadia with basic properties like lighting, forget us ever touring here again.

We have to risk our rankings and our players' morales for stupid "losses" like this.

Lol, Suleiman bhai thora halka hath
 
Pakistan should tell Zimbabwe point blank that if you can't maintain proper and professional level stadia with basic properties like lighting, forget us ever touring here again.

We have to risk our rankings and our players' morales for stupid "losses" like this.

They toured when their life was under threat and now Pakistan won’t tour because of floodlights?
 
ICC needs to take undertake some steps to standardize playing conditions - individual countries and boards simply have too much liberty, and there is a huge disparity between the conditions and standards of countries like Australia, England, South Africa and the developing countries.

For starters, floodlights should be mandatory. In this day and age, it is unacceptable to play ODI cricket in stadiums where there are no floodlights and you need to abandon matches due to poor visibility.

This is 2015 for God's sake.
 
ICC needs to take undertake some steps to standardize playing conditions - individual countries and boards simply have too much liberty, and there is a huge disparity between the conditions and standards of countries like Australia, England, South Africa and the developing countries.

For starters, floodlights should be mandatory. In this day and age, it is unacceptable to play ODI cricket in stadiums where there are no floodlights and you need to abandon matches due to poor visibility.

This is 2015 for God's sake.

Or just schedule them at intelligent times... E.g. All non-floodlit games in England start by 11am, quite often 10.30am because there's no way it's going to get at all dark before 7pm giving you more than enough time. Headingley has only just installed floodlights and Taunton is down to host 2019wc games and I highly doubt it will have floodlights by then.
 
They toured when their life was under threat and now Pakistan won’t tour because of floodlights?

That was their decision, and when we invited them, we gave them the best security and the best playing conditions possible (proper stadium, WORKING FLOODLIGHTS).

In that scenario, we invited them and provided them with what they needed.

We didn't ask to come to Zimbabwe, they wanted us to come, and when you ask someone over you need to make sure you have the basic necessities for a cricket game, because if you don't, then why waste some other team's time?

When you invite a team over, it is your responsibility to tend to these things, because if they are not taken care of it will ruin games like in this case, aka screw over your guests.
 
Last edited:
Nasser Hussain not pleased after what happened on Day 1 of the first England vs West Indies Test today.

“It’s one thing you have to try and explain to somebody new to the game. You spend a lot of money on lights, turn the lights on and go off for light."
 
Former England captain Nasser Hussain wants the ICC to revisit its regulations related to bad light which has affected Test matches over the years.

The officials on Wednesday were forced to call off the opening day of the first Test between England and the West Indies due to bad light and rain which saw only 17.4 overs being bowled.

ICC leaves it “solely for the umpires together to decide” whether bad light mean that “it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place.”

Hussain, who has scored 5764 runs in 96 Tests for England, perhaps feels the umpires can keep the players on the ground longer even if light might be considered poor.

“It’s one thing you have to try and explain to somebody new to the game. You spend a lot of money on lights, turn the lights on and go off for light. On this occasion, they’ve gone off for rain. It is something eventually that I’d like the ICC to change really,” Hussain said on Sky Sports Cricket.

“They might say ‘You’re a retired player’ and (talk about) stats, but look at that, the lights are on. If it wasn’t raining now, maybe the players could buy into the fact that the game needs to keep selling itself and if you can stay on, do stay on.”

The bad light laws have come for criticism in the past.

In 2013 Ashes series, chasing a target of 227, England required 21 off 24 balls with five wickets in hand when play was halted by the umpires due to bad light.

The bad light laws were again brought into question during the India vs Australia match at SCG in January last year when umpires called off play on the fourth day after ruling that light was poor to continue.

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/cric...change-its-bad-light-laws/article32033594.ece
 
Light is not great.
Put the floodlights on.
Light is better.
But let's still go off the field.

Ridiculous.
 
These rules turn spectators off from the game. At least in a sport like football, you can play in all sorts of weather and at day or night.
 
I think floodlight should be used more. Test cricket should have 90 overs per day.

It is silly not to use floodlight when it is available and it is needed.
 
These rules turn spectators off from the game. At least in a sport like football, you can play in all sorts of weather and at day or night.

When bowlers bowl 90 kph the light needs to be suitable pluss they use the same reading for all 5 days
 
Aussie legend Mark Taylor has joined the chorus condemning the ‘bonkers’ decision to call the first day of the England and Pakistan clash off early due to bad light.

Captain Azhar Ali was out for a duck as Pakistan limped to 2-53 under floodlights at lunch on day one of the first Test against England.

But the visitors well and truly recovered and Pakistan finished the day 2-139 with opener Shan Masood scoring 46 and Babar Azam 69.

However, umpires Richard Kettleborough and Richard Illingworth called the days play with two spinners, Dom Bess and Joe Root, bowling in tandem in an attempt to keep the game going.

Taylor, an Aussie test legend and former ICC committee member, took aim at the decision, which was costly for the game.

"In my time on these various panels the umpires were encouraged to stay on the field, pretty much at all costs," Taylor told the Wide World of Sports.

"I just don't understand it, if you've got two spinners bowling and no-one looks like getting hurt, I can't see why you'd go off.

"It's crazy, I don't understand it at times. Sometimes in cricket we don't help ourselves. The goal should always be to maximise the amount of play.

The decision was also blasted by former England captain Michael Vaughan who said Test cricket can be ‘bloody bonkers’.

Social media agreed with Taylor’s call that the game of Test cricket was doing no favours for itself.

England have named an unchanged side from the one that defeated West Indies by 269 runs last week, though key allrounder Ben Stokes is unlikely to be used much with the ball due to a quad injury.

Pakistan have gone with three seam bowlers, including young firebrands Shaheen Afridi, 20, and 17-year-old Naseem Shah, who are likely to play a key role in the series with their pace and movement.

They have also selected the leg-spin duo of Shadab Khan and Yasir Shah, and with the wicket already showing some sign of wear, they could be crucial in the fourth innings if Pakistan can get enough runs.

The tourists last won a test series in England in 1996, though three of the five since have been drawn, including their past two visits in 2016 and 2018.

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/cricket-mark-taylor-slams-england-pakistan-umpires-call-085746528.html
 
Or in the worst case if it’s a health and safety concern then just make a rule that under bad light conditions only spinners and medium pacers below 85mph are allowed to bowl , and give the bowler a warning and take out of the attack if they exceed that speed like they do with beamers, but at least play some cricket.
 
MICHAEL ATHERTON on Sky Sports says the current regulations are hard for fans to stomach and that cricket must "catch up"...

“At the moment bad light is solely at the discretion of the umpires. They take a reading and then that reading is the benchmark for the rest of the game and that’s where we’re a bit hamstrung now. Had there been a crowd in yesterday they would have found it very difficult to understand because we were here with floodlights and no play – on the (adjoining) nursery ground there was a full-on Pakistan practice game with Wahab Riaz steaming in.

"We’ve just sat and watched the players in the nets where the coaches have been throwing the ball hard from about 15 yards, with no sightscreens. I think we all know as former players, in the past, we were guilty of taking the light at every opportunity and we know that cricket can be played in gloomy conditions. Cricket has to catch up eventually.”

==


ATHERS believes that a rule will eventually come into place where if a ground has floodlights you play regardless...

“If you think back many years before helmets came in, the bad light regulations were there for a reason, because of players’ safety. Floodlights have come in as well and what is happening is cricket is almost slow to catch up to the fact it’s a different time. I think eventually what we’ll get to in cricket is just a simple regulation that where there’s a ground with floodlights, bad light does not apply."
 
Cricket’s authorities should update the rules concerning bad light so that play always continues at a floodlit stadium, according to Sky Sports pundit Michael Atherton.

Gloomy conditions at the Ageas Bowl restricted England and Pakistan to just 86 overs of play during the first two and a half days of the second Test - although the ground is equipped with floodlights.

But current ICC regulations state that only the two umpires can determine whether it is safe to play - and, once they have taken a light meter reading that is deemed too low, the match must be halted if conditions dip below that level again.

"If you think back many years to before helmets came in, the bad light regulations were there for a reason - because of players' safety," said Atherton.

"Floodlights have come in as well and what is happening is cricket is almost slow to catch up to the fact it's a different time.

"I think eventually what we'll get to in cricket is just a simple regulation that, where there's a ground with floodlights, bad light does not apply. We're not there yet.

"At the moment bad light is solely at the discretion of the umpires. They take a reading, then that reading is the benchmark for the rest of the game and that's where we're a bit hamstrung now."

To underline the inconsistency of the present rules, Pakistan's white-ball squad were involved in a warm-up match on the practice pitch adjoining the Ageas Bowl late on Friday, while the Test players remained in the dressing-room due to bad light.

The limited-overs squad, who have also been training in the bio-secure environment, are due to face England in a three-match T20I series at Old Trafford, beginning on August 28.

"Had there been a crowd in, they would have found it very difficult to understand because we were here with floodlights and no play - and on the nursery ground there was a full-on practice with Wahab Riaz steaming in," added Atherton.

"We've sat and watched the players in the nets, where the coaches have been throwing the ball hard from about 15 yards, with no sightscreens.

"I think we all know as former players, that in the past we were guilty of taking the light at every opportunity and we know cricket can be played in gloomy conditions. Cricket has to catch up eventually."

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/n...at-test-grounds-must-override-bad-light-rules
 
Nasser Hussain hit out at "a lack of effort" to resume play at the Ageas Bowl after the third day of the second Test between England and Pakistan was abandoned without a ball bowled.

Gloomy overhead conditions, combined with drizzle - rather than heavy rain - have meant only 86 overs have been bowled so far in the match, with the tourists reaching 223-9.

The Sky Sports pundit said: "I had sympathy for the umpires on day two, they were just following the letter of the law, but today there has been a lack of effort to get the game on.

"From where I am, I can see two people working on the ground. Imagine if this was Sri Lanka - how many people would be rushing around to get the covers off?

"For the amount of rain we have had in this game, to only have had 86 overs of cricket is disgraceful. The effort that's gone in to get this Test series on, to just not have any effort to get out there and play the game [is not right].

"We've had people in a bio-secure environment since the end of June - people staying in a bubble, people staying in a hotel on the ground, people not allowed to leave, people being tested twice a week.

"And look how long it takes to get a game of cricket started. It's not good enough. Get those covers off!"

Current ICC regulations state that only the two umpires can determine whether it is safe to play - and, once they have taken a light reading that is deemed too low, the match must be halted if conditions dip below that level again.

The inconsistency of those rules were underlined by the fact Pakistan's white-ball squad were involved in a warm-up match on the practice pitch adjoining the Ageas Bowl late on Friday, while the Test players remained in the dressing-room due to bad light.

Hussain also feels the generation he played in are partly to blame for a culture of reluctance among cricketers to continue in even slightly fading light, given the opportunity not to do so.

"We're all guilty of it, because of the amount we played," he added. "We played a three-day game, then a Test match, then another three-day game and another Test.

"Whenever the light got a bit marginal, we all played that game where we went to the umpires - tired umpires, who themselves wanted to go off - and we'd say 'the light's a bit dodgy' and we'd blink our eyes and say 'we're not seeing it that well'.

"Then we'd wander off and sit in the dressing-room. If I went to any workplace in the world and said at 4pm 'look, you can all go home if you want, you'll still get paid' - you'd take it.

"People have got into the mindset that if in doubt, we'll just wander off and I'm afraid our game cannot afford that any more. Our game is shooting itself in the foot if every time, you wander off when you can and don't restart when you can."

Fellow Sky Sports pundit Michael Atherton believes the rules governing bad light should be overridden at grounds which - like the Ageas Bowl - are floodlit.

"If you think back many years to before helmets came in, the bad light regulations were there for a reason - because of players' safety. Floodlights have come in as well and cricket is almost slow to catch up to the fact it's a different time.

"I think eventually what we'll get to in cricket is just a simple regulation that, where there's a ground with floodlights, bad light does not apply.

"At the moment bad light is solely at the discretion of the umpires. They take a reading, then that reading is the benchmark for the rest of the game and that's where we're a bit hamstrung now."

Shane Warne and Nasser Hussain joined Mike Atherton for an in-depth chat on all aspects of what makes a successful captain
Shane Warne sees a possible solution in the use of a pink ball as standard for Test cricket, which might help to negate poor light.

"There has been so much hard work to get the cricket on and players have given up their time," said Warne.

"I don't think the light is dangerous but I think we could help it with the pink ball so that when it does get dark we can play.

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/n...lay-in-england-vs-pakistan-test-at-ageas-bowl
 
Absolutely criminal how much time was lost yesterday - ICC/ECB need to do something about this.
 
JOS BUTTLER speaking on Sky Sports:

"It's been very frustrating. You just want to get out and play, get the game moving forward, we're into day four and we're still fielding in the first innings. So frustrating but it is what it is.

"Sometimes (pundits get carried away saying they should go get out there and play), cricket is a very imperfect game. I don't think there is a perfect situation to the light situation. Now we've got the floodlights, we play more cricket than we used to but it is still not perfect. The colour of the ball is quite dark and with player safety, I don't think there is a perfect answer. At times umpires are an easy scapegoat."
 
A game in 2020, stops for bad light with lights on....
Rain it stops .....
Something needs to be done.....

Four days done, teams been playing cards!......

LOL this is the same game that was played in 2005 in night.... so England could win....
Pakistan deserved it but something needs to be done.

I needed cricket this weekend :D
 
NASSER wants Test matches to start earlier when bad light causes issues...

"Why don’t we start at 10.30am in the morning when it was perfect sunshine? Why don’t we make up time? At the end of the day when it’s getting darker we make up time but at the beginning of the day when it’s getting lighter we don’t make up half an hour. Where is the sense in that? Try and use every window of opportunity to keep this game one."

NASSER continues...

"Imagine taking a kid to a Test match. They have looked forward to it all week. It gets a bit dark, they turn the lights on and 10 minutes later they are walking off. The kid turns to you and says 'why are they going off?' and you say ‘the light’s not good enough?’ Explain that. You have to try and stay on wherever possible."
 
According to The Telegraph, the ICC to discuss on bad light regulations as the current ongoing test between England and Pakistan blighted by stoppages.
 
Rain and bad light have combined to limit action in the second test between England and Pakistan in Southampton, frustrating players and television viewers hoping for live cricket amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We at the ICC are open to such ideas and the ICC Cricket Committee may discuss the issue in their next meeting,” the source said.


Umpires currently use light meters to determine if the light is “dangerous or unreasonable” to continue playing.

In 2013, ICC member boards rejected the governing body’s proposal of using floodlights to continue a test match in case of fading natural light.

The ICC Cricket Committee has not set a date for its next meeting and any recommendation to use floodlights would require the approval of the ICC Board.

Former England captain Michael Vaughan has suggested using a pink ball, currently used only in day-night tests for its higher visibility, to avoid losing playing time to bad light.

“The more I watch this, particularly in England, the pink ball could be the solution - just play with it all the time,” Vaughan told BBC Test Match Special.

Former Australia leg-spinner Shane Warne also backed the pink-ball idea.

“If we lower that light meter reading and use a pink ball for test matches, I think we’ll stay out there a lot longer,” Warne told Sky Sports on Monday.

Under existing playing conditions, a pink ball can be used in any bilateral series, provided the two teams involved agree in advance.

https://in.reuters.com/article/cric...c-panel-likely-to-discuss-rules-idINKCN25D21G
 
There has been cricket played under lights with a red ball in the past, it's not ideal, but by no means an absolute hindrance to player safety.

I'd be averse to regulations which allow the switch to a pink ball in the middle of a test, as that would affect the sanctity of the game, but if the forecast is bad there should be flexibility to allow for the use of a pink ball from the start of the test if the two teams agree.

I've felt that umpires have been excessively conservative when it comes to taking the players off the field over the last few years and have often displayed a lack of common sense.

The two umpires in Southampton will probably bear a lot of flak for what transpired, and they deserve to be sanctioned.
 
ECB weighing up earlier start times in wake of England-Pakistan washout

The England and Wales Cricket Board is holding internal conversations around more flexible start times to make up for lost play, but any changes may not come soon enough for the third Test against Pakistan later this week.

The PA news agency understands that key figures at the ECB are currently discussing the idea of moving the rigid 11am start time forward following five dreadfully disappointing days at the second Test.

Those conversations are taking place in-house as well as informally with rights-holding broadcasters Sky Sports and BBC radio’s Test Match Special.

A paltry 134.3 overs were possible in a bore draw at Ageas Bowl and, although rain was partially to blame, there was also widespread dissatisfaction at early departures from the field for bad light.

While more proactive umpiring would be one solution – players need only be taken off the field when visibility is dangerous, not imperfect – there were several mornings in Southampton where fine weather and good light were wasted.

The 11am start has not always been set in stone in England and timings also vary internationally depending on local requirements but, even though there is a growing willingness at the ECB to push ahead with a change to the playing conditions, a three-day turnaround between matches might prove too short.

The worst fears are that bad light and rain again play a factor in the series decider – and current forecasts suggest that is possible – but there are a number of deals in place that muddy the issue.

While it appears a given that the UK broadcasters would welcome minor alterations to their schedules in return for more live cricket, the #raisethebat series is being screened in a number of different territories via a world feed and agreements with a wide network of television companies would all need to be revised. Schedules, listings and advertising are all in place based on the current timings and throwing them off, even by half-an-hour, would take some unpicking.

Should a solution be found in time, the respective captains, coaches and match officials could then be brought into the conversation and would need to agree to a change two games into a three-match series.

The received wisdom is that the ball moves around more prodigiously earlier in the morning in England, so that would be a variable all parties would need to be comfortable with.

England skipper Joe Root has already said he is open to the idea of earlier starts after being left frustrated by events in Southampton but, with a 1-0 lead to preserve, may prefer to revisit the matter at the start of a series rather than during.

Another reason often given for the fixed 11am start is fairness to fans. That is not an issue in this behind-closed-doors summer, but the official Barmy Army fans’ group would support a more agile approach in future.

Managing director Chris Millard told PA: “Well-travelled cricket fans are used to seeing start times changed in other countries around the world for the benefit of the game. We would welcome any positive decision in making the game more accessible for everyone.

“Rain breaks and bad light cause unwanted interruptions and any moves to catch up on lost time are a welcome move in the right direction. At the moment we don’t know when the Barmy Army will be allowed back into grounds to support their team but, when we do, we hope as much effort as possible can be put into getting the game on.”

https://www.ledburyreporter.co.uk/s...er-start-times-wake-england-pakistan-washout/
 
I still can't understand why the pink ball isn't being considered. I hear some argument that the pink ball goes softer more quickly or that it swings a bit too much but no one has provided a good explanation as to why that would be the case if the ball is constructed exactly the same as the red ball.
 
I still can't understand why the pink ball isn't being considered. I hear some argument that the pink ball goes softer more quickly or that it swings a bit too much but no one has provided a good explanation as to why that would be the case if the ball is constructed exactly the same as the red ball.

It's not constructed the same way, they have to use artificial dyes to coat it instead of regular wax on a red ball. This affects the durability of the ball as the wax allows the red ball to retain its colour and shine much longer. The artificial dye wears off after 40 overs, which usually forces the umpires to search for a replacement.

On the other hand, the seam on the pink ball is more pronounced than that on the red ball, which helps bowlers when the ball is new. The extra lacquer on the pink ball also causes it to swing more.
 
Last edited:
It's not constructed the same way, they have to use artificial dyes to coat it instead of regular wax on a red ball. This affects the durability of the ball as the wax allows the red ball to retain its colour and shine much longer. The artificial dye wears off after 40 overs, which usually forces the umpires to search for a replacement.

On the other hand, the seam on the pink ball is more pronounced than that on the red ball, which helps bowlers when the ball is new. The extra lacquer on the pink ball also causes it to swing more.

I know that they aren't constructed in the same manner. My question was if they were to be constructed the same would there be a difference?

As far as I know the red leather is dyed as well, so I am not sure about your first point. I know that the pink ball has an extra layer of lacquer to prevent discoloration but for day tests a bit of discoloration shouldn't be the biggest problem. What I am proposing is that we create a pink ball with no difference apart from it being dyed red. Your points suggest that isn't possible though, so if you could point me to a source I would like to check read up on that.
 
I know that they aren't constructed in the same manner. My question was if they were to be constructed the same would there be a difference?

As far as I know the red leather is dyed as well, so I am not sure about your first point. I know that the pink ball has an extra layer of lacquer to prevent discoloration but for day tests a bit of discoloration shouldn't be the biggest problem. What I am proposing is that we create a pink ball with no difference apart from it being dyed red. Your points suggest that isn't possible though, so if you could point me to a source I would like to check read up on that.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/sixteen-shades-of-pink/6889650

https://scroll.in/field/944179/pink-vs-red-sgs-chief-ball-inspector-explains-the-difference-ahead-of-day-night-eden-gardens-test

Here are a couple of articles.

Essentially the difference in construction of the ball relates to the dyes and the treatment of the leather. There is really no way that they can prevent the discolouration of the pink ball without applying the extra lacquer, and even then it's not an ideal solution given that the ball still loses colour after 40 overs.

The size of the seam was changed to counteract the effect of dew at night. If the ball is to be used at day, that might not be a factor.
 
this is just a knee jerk reaction to rain and bad light by the english commentators..... nobody ease should back their stupidity.... theses laws have been around for donkeys years
 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/sixteen-shades-of-pink/6889650

https://scroll.in/field/944179/pink-vs-red-sgs-chief-ball-inspector-explains-the-difference-ahead-of-day-night-eden-gardens-test

Here are a couple of articles.

Essentially the difference in construction of the ball relates to the dyes and the treatment of the leather. There is really no way that they can prevent the discolouration of the pink ball without applying the extra lacquer, and even then it's not an ideal solution given that the ball still loses colour after 40 overs.

The size of the seam was changed to counteract the effect of dew at night. If the ball is to be used at day, that might not be a factor.

So after reading the articles it seems that what I suggest should definitely be doable with the kookabura ball. The kookabura leather is dyed red and pink respectively and everything is the same except that they add an extra layer of paint to the pink ball to avoid prevent discoloration and ensure better visibility under the lights. As far as day tests are concerned even that extra coat of paint can be taken away since the game isn't going to be played in pitch darkness.

The pink SG ball on the other hand appears to be a lot different from the red variant and their method clearly needs to be refined further when it comes to constructing the pink ball.
 
Its ludicrous that they still just won't go through with floodlights. Its 2020 for gods sake. And its not even that the players are playing under complete darkness. This is incase the natural light gets dimmer.

This is an outrageous debate because it shouldn't be a debate in the first place. If they can contemplate earlier starts they should think about using floodlights too. And the 'tradition' argument has no merit because it was thrown out the window the moment they started playing D/N tests.
 
So after reading the articles it seems that what I suggest should definitely be doable with the kookabura ball. The kookabura leather is dyed red and pink respectively and everything is the same except that they add an extra layer of paint to the pink ball to avoid prevent discoloration and ensure better visibility under the lights. As far as day tests are concerned even that extra coat of paint can be taken away since the game isn't going to be played in pitch darkness.

The pink SG ball on the other hand appears to be a lot different from the red variant and their method clearly needs to be refined further when it comes to constructing the pink ball.

I disagree slightly as I believe the discolouration of the ball will be a serious issue even under daylight, as the ball turns black without that extra lacquer.

In any case, it's better to play with the pink ball when the weather forecast dictates than have no cricket at all. It doesn't matter if they can't replicate the exact behaviour of a red ball.
 
The issue of bad light is easily the most annoying thing about test cricket at the moment. The regulations definitely need to be revisited.

Umpires taking players off for the light should only do so when it's too dangerous to sight the ball.

The television coverage should become more inclusive to disclose light meter readings as well, so that fans know what's going on.
 
Test cricket’s rigid and archaic rules have come under fresh scrutiny as the historic first Test between Australia and Pakistan in Rawalpindi continues to be hampered by the weather gods.

Highly favourable batting conditions have made the likelihood of achieving a result in the first Test extremely difficult, with Pakistan batting for 162 overs before Australia made 2-271 on day three.

Making matters worse is that two days of play have finished early due to bad light — even with the floodlights on — while the entire first session of day four will be wiped out due to a wet outfield, despite it not actually raining.

Heavy falls overnight in Rawalpindi soaked the outfield which several hours later hadn’t completely dried up.

More than 90 minutes after play was due to start, it was still deemed not safe.

Speaking during the delay, Mark Waugh called for play to resume, while also taking aim at the rules for bad light.

“This is the annoying thing about cricket,” Waugh said on Fox Cricket. “We’re not there obviously, but to me it looks like most of the ground is pretty good.

“The pitch is fine, there’s a couple of wet spots — play on. Get a bit of sawdust out there, get those wet spots a bit drier.

“So far we’ve seen two days’ play cut short when the lights have been on. What’s the use of lights? Put them on, stay out there. I don’t care who’s bowling; quick bowlers, spin bowlers. It’s not dangerous.

“We need to get these things right.”

Kerry O’Keeffe agreed, saying: “This will be a shortened day and light will be a factor later in the afternoon.

“Come on. It’s a flat track, we need as much play as possible to get a result, but they’ll be off before the official end of play because of the bad light.”

Asked what the late great Shane Warne would thinking of the situation, he added: “He’d be blowing up.

“He was an entertainer. The entertainment is not happening because water in the outfield. How? Why aren’t the cover stretching across the ground?”

A total of 21 overs were lost due to bad light on day three.

On day two, Pakistan declared with 10 overs remaining but was forced to open the bowling with a spinner due to the bad light.

After one over, Pakistan refused to bowl spin, meaning play was called off for the day.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...e/news-story/322a95bc77c54cf04ee6434da52a2533
 
The second Test between Pakistan and New Zealand wound down to an extraordinary finish on Friday with both sides being with a realistic chance to win the match. Sarfaraz Ahmed's gritty century on Day 5 kept Pakistan with a chance to win despite wickets falling at the other end while chasing a target of 319. Sarfaraz ended up being the 10th wicket to fall after making 118 in 176 balls and the Kiwis then brought the fielders in to surround the two tail-end batters with less than 10 overs to spare in the day.

However, Pakistan also needed only 32 runs to win when the last wicket partnership began and Naseem Shah reduced that margin by hitting over the field and finding the boundary a few times. In the end, Pakistan needed just 15 runs to win with about three overs to spare in the day when the umpires decided that the light was not good enough for the match to go on. The two sets of players shook hands and the second Test, like the first, finished in a draw.

There were a few who were miffed by the decision to end the Test potentially right before a result could have come. Among them was former New Zealand all-rounder Scott Styris and Kiwi star Jimmy Neesham. “Both teams had a chance of winning and we come off the field with 3 overs to go. Exhibit A of why test cricket is in trouble. Well done both teams for battling all the way,” Styris said in a tweet.

Neesham responded to Styris by saying: “You sit through 4 days of rubbish to set up a genuinely enthralling finish then this s**t happens. What an absolute dog’s breakfast of a sport”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...o-spare-due-to-bad-light-101673061601639.html
 
The Sydney Test should become a day-night match or, at the very least, be played with a pink ball to avoid fans being robbed of play through bad light, Venues NSW chairman Tony Shepherd said on Saturday.

Cricket Australia opposed a day-night Test in Sydney because it would interrupt the Big Bash schedule, but chief executive Nick Hockley described playing the Test with a pink ball, which would coincide with the McGrath Foundation’s Pink Test, as an “interesting idea”.

Speaking as the fourth day’s play of the third and final Test against South Africa at the SCG was again delayed by bad weather, Shepherd said the farcical scenes on day one, when hours of play were lost due to bad light, should “never happen again”.

There was no support for moving the Test to earlier in the season to try and avoid the rain, with Shepherd, Hockley and batsman Usman Khawaja, who was left stranded on 195 not out on Saturday when Australia captain Pat Cummins declared, all opposing the idea. Day three was washed out on Friday, the 26th time Sydney has lost a full day’s cricket through rain, more than all other Australian Test venues combined.

Shepherd spoke to Hockley on Friday about the possibility of a pink ball Test.

“I said we can make it a pink ball Test and one of our directors, Jane Spring, suggested we sell the pink balls after the Test and put the proceeds into the McGrath Foundation,” Shepherd said on radio SEN.

“The alternative would be if you had that light issue at the end of the day, just have a packet of worn pink balls there and substitute them.

“In my view, cricket and all elite sports survive on fans, whether that’s eyeballs [on television] or present [at the ground]. We have to do everything in our power to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

“If it’s becoming more often with climate change and what have you that’s something we should fix, and if using a pink ball works, why not.

“We could do a day-nighter, or just use a pink ball for the whole game. I’m sure the McGrath Foundation would like a pink ball at the Pink Test.”

During the Test, Hockley said that replacing the lights in towers at cricket grounds throughout the country with new LED bulbs would help reduce problems with bad light, but Shepherd insisted this was not an issue at the SCG.

“The light towers are about as powerful as you can get,” Shepherd said. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the technology. I’ve checked it and have been told that if there was any more illumination we’d be blinding people. You could probably light half of Sydney with those towers. That’s not the issue.”

Hockley claimed scheduling would prevent Sydney becoming a day-night Test.

“It’s an interesting idea, and would really fit in with what has become one of the most iconic Test matches on the global cricket calendar,” he said. “The issue with a day-night Test here is that the Big Bash night matches are a really successful part of the calendar for fans and broadcasters. We’ve got cricket on TV effectively from 10am to midnight some days, which is a big part of the broadcast rights deal and gives fans so many options. It’s important in terms of encouraging more kids to play, too.

“There has been discussion over the past few days about the pink ball and if there was a pink ball that could be developed that behaves like a red ball, [so] maybe a day Test here with a pink ball could be an interesting idea.”

Fox Sports general manager of cricket Matt Weiss is in favour of a Sydney day-night Test.

“We’re big supporters of the Pink Test pushing into prime-time,” he said. “It delivers terrific audiences and the crowds that go to pink-ball Tests have been good. You can see that in Adelaide. The public enjoy it, and we’d get right behind it. I think the players also enjoy it a lot now.

“You’d have to look at the Big Bash with 61 games. That would take out another five prime-time nights, which would create some difficulty scheduling.

“But with the Big Bash in the new rights deal going back to 43 games, I’d imagine that would be a lot easier to manage and a good idea.”

However, Australian spin bowler Nathan Lyon opposed any more day-night Tests beyond the annual fixture in Adelaide.

“God, no,” Lyon said on SEN. “You can play a day-night Test match as we see in Adelaide, but I think there is only a certain number of venues you can do that in the world, if I’m being honest. Adelaide has knocked that down to an absolute tee. It’s the best place to play day-night cricket. Here it’s red ball and that’s it.”

Glenn McGrath supported the day-night Test concept.

“I think a pink ball with the pink Test all goes together. I’d be happy with that,” he said.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...ll-pink-test-after-farce-20230107-p5cazf.html
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Another little grey area in the rule book imo. If the fielding team is told to bowl spin because of bad light and they take the option, they should be forced to finish the overs with spin until the Umps call it off, cause they can bring seam on at any time to finish the match.</p>— AB de Villiers (@ABdeVilliers17) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABdeVilliers17/status/1611342090192969730?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If the batting team manages to get it down to 5 or so runs required, the fielding team can just opt to bring on a seamer. Not fair imo</p>— AB de Villiers (@ABdeVilliers17) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABdeVilliers17/status/1611343959187390464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Back
Top