Bilal Ahmed wrote:
> So basically you are a person to me that loves to follow the book ...
> Laws are meant to guide and if a ruling body of cricket is unable to
> alter laws and has to wait for MCC or some other to do it. It is wrong
> itself.
The Laws are there. Changes of the Laws to suit conditions, tournaments,
age levels or whatever are generally fine ... limited overs cricket
basically ignores the Wide Law. In Australia these are usually called
Playing Regulations and are a formally approved set of guidlines to be
used in conjunction with the Laws. This doesn't bother me in regards to
this discussion. The key bit you have written is "the MCC or some other
to do it". I have a problem with the "some other". If the MCC had
overuled this then I would have accepted it. But they didn't, an outside
body did. And they did it based on who knows what ... I doubt it very
much that the ECB Regulations for 2006 International Matches had a
clause stating "that if a result isn't liked then the ICC will change it
to make everybody happy".

> Laws need to be looked in the light of events and interpreted. Atleast
> thats what I have studied in the Law courses that I have done during
> my studies.

We are talking about sport here; something far more important than the
legal world. Legally, I assume the ICC can do what it likes with the
game and so be it, but on the whole, like the ICC itself, that is even
more irrelevant to me.

Cheers
Christopher