Cricket’s bad light problem: All your questions answered

Showers, rain, thunderstorm, light-meters, damp outfield, official inspections, and a teeny-weeny bit of cricket squeezed in between. That’s precisely how the second Test at Southampton between England and Pakistan unfolded. Over the course of 5 days, only 134.2 overs were bowled and the match ended in a fruitless, mundane draw. The Test was the ninth shortest in England in terms of balls bowled although it was only the third draw in the past 43 Tests in the United Kingdom.

Despite path-breaking technological improvements and developments in the game, the issue of bad light remains recklessly unheeded and overlooked. With time the protective gear, helmets, keeping gloves, and bats have undergone an immense change. Improved drainage systems have resulted in much shorter delays due to rain and the rate of scoring. However, the solution to the age-old problem of bad light is found nowhere.

Here are all your questions regarding cricket’s bad light problem answered-

Why can’t the game be played in low light?

Bad light puts the physical security of the batsmen, keepers, fielders, and to an extent even bowlers at peril. Not being able to sight the ball defeats the purpose of the game for all the players involved.

What is the law regarding bad light?

Law 2.7 of the Laws of Cricket (Marylebone Cricket Club) Code (referred to as “the Code” hereinafter) provides for “Fitness for play”. Law 2.7.1 of the Code reads as: “It is solely for the umpires together to decide whether either condition of the ground, weather, or light or exceptional circumstances mean that it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place.”

Further, Law 3.5.3 of the modified MCC manual states: “The decision as to whether conditions are so bad as to warrant such action is one for the umpires alone to make.”

Prior to 2010, the umpires used to consult the batsmen whether or not they are able to sight the ball or facing any issues. However, the code was amended since the discretion of the batting team on whether play should be continued or not was viewed as an advantage to their favor. For instance, a team struggling to bat would always exercise the option of leaving the match citing bad light, irrespective of whether they actually feel any danger or not.

After 2010, the umpires have the sole discretion on deciding upon stopping the play due to bad light. The umpires carry a light-meter with them used for measuring the light. Relying on the reading of the meter, they decide whether to continue the play or stop.

What are “dangerous” and “unreasonable” conditions?

Law 2.7.2 of the Code states that conditions shall be regarded as dangerous if there is an actual and foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire.

Further, Law 2.7.3 states that conditions shall be regarded as unreasonable if, although posing no risk to safety, it would not be sensible for play to proceed.

Law 2.7.4 of the Code provides that if the umpires consider the ground-

• so wet or slippery as to deprive the bowler of a reasonable foothold;
• the fielders of the power of free movement, or
• the batsmen of the ability to play their strokes or to run between the wickets,

Then these conditions shall be regarded as so bad that it would be dangerous and unreasonable for play to take place.

Is every unideal situation like a wet ball/ground dangerous?

No. There are a couple of exceptions to the above rule-

• Conditions shall not be regarded as either dangerous or unreasonable merely because they are not ideal.
• Also, the fact that the grass and the ball are wet does not warrant the ground conditions being regarded as unreasonable or dangerous.

Therefore, just a wet ball or wet ground or any such unideal playing condition does not qualify as unreasonable or dangerous.

What if the playing conditions are dangerous or unreasonable indeed?

Law 2.8 of the Code provides for “Suspension of play in dangerous or unreasonable circumstances”

Law 2.8.2 states that umpires shall immediately suspend play if they consider that the conditions of ground, weather or light, or any other circumstances are either dangerous or unreasonable.

Further, Law 2.8.3 provides for the resumption and lays down that it is the responsibility of the umpires to monitor conditions. Hence, the umpires need to make inspections as often as appropriate, unaccompanied by any players or officials. Once the umpires together agree that the conditions are no longer dangerous or unreasonable they shall call upon the players to resume play.

Aren’t these definitions subjective?

Yes, they are. But “dangerous” and “unreasonable” are difficult terms to be defined objectively. Also, there is no manner in which such dangerousness or unreasonableness could be quantified and/or represented in numbers or terms.

Technology is used to assist the umpires, however, the light-meter too, only indicates whether the light has improved or deteriorated. It is due to such unquantifiability that the umpires have been given the duty to decide from a rational and prudent man’s standard as what is “dangerous” and “unreasonable”.

So no matter if the discretion or power in an umpire’s hands appears arbitrary and grotesque, there is not much that could be done.

How bad is too bad?

This is again a tricky one to answer. On many occasions in the past, the umpires have decided to halt play due to poor light despite the players being comfortable and satisfied with the level of light on the field.

After the Southampton Test, James Anderson voiced his frustration about not being able to finish Pakistan’s inning off.  In the post-match conference, Pakistan batsman Mohammad Rizwan also admitted that he had no issues in sighting the ball and had no problem in batting.

Therefore, it seems that the opinion of players makes no difference to the umpires. Since even the law provides unbridled discretion to the umpires, the question of how bad is too bad can only be answered by the ones who make that call on the field.

Why does this problem need immediate attention?

The current series is being played in the midst of a global pandemic. The England Cricket Board (ECB) left no stone unturned to carry out the series against West Indies earlier and then Pakistan to give some oxygen to a reeling and cash-crunched cricketing milieu. After such Herculean efforts, allowing causes such as poor light to ruin entire Test matches is not the best way to improve the situation of a financial meltdown.

Moreover, in the recent past, many teams have been denied a chance to cross the line of victory in a Test due to poor light. England were just 25 runs short chasing 99 in the Abu Dhabi Test in 2015 when bad light forced to halt play. In another notable instance amongst many others, the Brits were left furious when they were only 21 runs short of the winning target in Oval during the Ashes of 2013 and bad light drifted the match in a draw.

Unlike the past occasions, now there are World Test Championship points at stake and therefore a match running its full course has become a sheer necessity. Moreover, such abandonments incur heavy losses to broadcasters too. Therefore, there is no reason why the problem should be left unattended.

What are the solutions?

There are many but all the solutions have issues of their own:

Brighter floodlights-

In the Test at Southampton, the floodlights were on for almost the entire duration but did not seem to suffice or even improve the bad light situation too much. However, the color of the ball could be a downside of using brighter floodlights. For instance, the wine-red Duke’s ball used in England could be difficult to spot under lights.

Color of the ball-

The color of the ball has been a point of discussion for long and a number of people moot the use of the pink ball as a solution by either substituting a similar-aged pink ball in bad light situations or choosing one beforehand in a match that has a poor weather forecast. Due to its bright color, the pink ball is easy to spot in low light unlike the traditional red ball, which is regarded as difficult to see under floodlights and overcast weather.

However, the pink ball behaves differently to the red ball and loses its shape and hardness more quickly. Another argument against the use of the pink ball is its erratic and unpredictable movement during twilight.

Retractable roof over cricket stadiums-

A retractable roof will cover the ground in its entirety from the top and will prevent rain and the subsequent conditions from affecting the play. Though it is possible from an engineering point of view, the costs are mind-boggling.

Early start-

The conventional time of Tests starting in certain places such as England is 11:00 AM. On day four, two hours of good weather were simply wasted and when the teams took ground, they had to leave after an hour of play due to rain and bad light. Therefore, the ICC has reportedly agreed for a 10:30 AM start after its recent deliberations with the ECB. However, even by the best bowling rates, not more than 7-8 overs can be bowled in half an hour.

Reserve day-

Some cricketers have opined that keeping a reserve 6th day to cover up any time lost to inclement weather, poor light, wet outfield, etc can solve the issue. However, an additional allotted day for every Test will surely mess up the cricket calendar (or the Future Tours Program of the ICC). Also in a time when organizers have been inclined towards 4-day Tests, the idea of an extra day seems to be a pipe dream.

What lies ahead?

The debate around bad light is neither new nor rising for the first time. Despite being an age-old problem, there is barely anything that the cricketing world has tried to apply and get rid of it. It doesn’t seem that the problem will be solved soon.