(In the wake of the second test match between India and Australia at the SCG ...)
Here are the new amendments:
Amendment 1.1 — LBW rule
It is no longer necessary for the ball to hit the pad for a leg before wicket appeal to be successful. The ball can hit the bat or even miss the player completely. As long as the leg is before the wicket, it can be deemed out. The batsman or his pads have no required legal involvement in this process.
Amendment 1.2 — The Caught behind rule (converse of LBW rule),
The batsman will be deemed caught behind, if the ball makes it to the wicketkeeper’s gloves. No contact with the bat is necessary. As the rule implies in its apt naming, the ball has only to be caught behind the stumps. The batsman and his bat have no required legal involvement in this process.
Amendment 2.1 — The Catch rule
Gully cricket rules will be expressly observed in this regard. The ball can reach the fielders’ hands after one bounce, and can be claimed as a catch. The ball can be caught after the bounce, with one hand or two hands, as per the fielder’s discretion. It’s mandatory for the catcher to make a dive or roll over after grabbing the ball.
Amendment 2.1 — sub clause
i) In the above case, the umpire, if in doubt, can outsource the decision to the fielding team captain, who can then convey his decision directly to the batsman. This will be known as the ‘Bangalore Amendment’.
Amendment 3.1 — TV Umpire rule
Whenever a decision is referred to the third umpire (TV umpire) it is not legally binding for the said umpire to be watching the cricket channel on his/her TV in the umpires box. The TV can be tuned to any channel, as long as it is not beaming racially insensitive programming. The mere matter of the impending decision can be sorted out by the TV umpire in the commercial break of the programming he/she is enjoying.
The decision can be made on a random‘eanie-meanie-minah-mo’ basis of selection. No proof or reference/attribution to on-field occurrence is necessary in such decisions.
Amendment 5.1 — the Racism hearing rule (also referred to as the Guilty until proven Innocent rule)
This rule states that any sub-continental player accused of any charge by the opposing team is guilty. No proof or evidence is required. The player must be banned for 1/2/3 Test matches, the punishment being directly proportionate to the nuisance value of said player to the accusing opposition. The charges for imposing a ban can be racial abuse, verbal abuse, stealing helmet, having an extra sandwich at teatime or not saying ‘excuse me’ after an on-field sneeze.
So, there you have it, poor Mr Bucknor and Mr Benson are not at fault, because these amendments came into effect with the 2nd India-Australia Test match. It’s a pity that only one team knew the new rules.
Evil roommate’s observation of the week: The racial abuse hearing was judged by a White South African?
