ICC needs to tweak sanctions on slow over-rate

England and Australia have just finished playing one of the most exciting series in the history of the Ashes, the 2-2 draw perhaps the appropriate result, for neither team deserved to end up on the losing side. This, even as Pakistan and India defeated Sri Lanka (2-0) and West Indies (1-0) respectively in lopsided contests.

On Wednesday, the International Cricket Council penalised England and Australia by both fining and docking valuable World Test Championship points for maintaining a slow over-rate in the series. As a result, England lost a whopping 19 points of the 28 they had accumulated from two wins and a draw, leaving Ben Stokes' men at fifth place with nine points (15 percentage points or PCT), behind even West Indies. Australia weren't hit as hard but they also saw 10 points deducted from the 28 they had earned in the Ashes. They are placed third (18 points; PCT: 30) behind Pakistan (24; PCT: 100) and India (16; PCT: 66.67).

Also Read | Khawaja fumes after Australia docked WTC points in Ashes

While the ICC had softened the blow to players by reducing the fine for slow over-rates, it had retained the rule to dock teams one point for each over bowled less in the stipulated time after taking allowances into consideration. That leaves both England and Australia, the defending champions, with daunting tasks if they are to make it to the 2025 WTC final at Lord's. Of England’s remaining 16 Tests in this cycle, five are against India away from home. Australia will play India in an equal number of matches for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy at home. As such, their task is slightly simpler, but complicated nonetheless.

Usman Khawaja, who claimed he had lobbied the ICC to reduce fines on players for slow over-rate offences, was understandably not amused with the deduction in the crucial WTC points.

"Don't even get the chance to bowl in the second innings at Manchester due to 2 days of rain and @ICC still issue fines and take 10 WTC points off us for slow over rates!" the Aussie opener posted on X (formerly Twitter). "That makes a lot of sense..." he added for good measure.

Slow over-rates in red-ball cricket are almost exclusive to matches in SENA countries, where conditions require at least three pacers to operate extensively as opposed to pitches in the sub-continent, where spinners bowl for longer hours. In fact, India, who employed four seamers, were fined 100 percent of their match fee for bowling fewer overs than they were required to in the WTC final against Australia at The Oval in June.

The sanctions, on the face of it, may appear to punish teams that are playing entertaining cricket while rewarding teams that have been involved in series with few takers, but that would be telling only half the truth. The basic premise for sanctions is that fans pay to watch 90 overs of cricket per day (or six hours of play) and anything less after taking all major and minor interruptions into consideration should invite some penalty.

Having realised that monetary fines and suspension of captains for repeat offences weren't yielding the desired results, ICC decided to hit where it hurts the most, something that would seriously compromise teams' chances of progressing to the final of the championship. It may be recalled that Australia missed out on the inaugural WTC final because of docked points that allowed New Zealand to squeak through, and eventually win the title.

That being said, teams playing in the SENA countries - as is evident from India's example at The Oval - are usually found on the wrong side of the law and that discrepancy has to be addressed.

"It's (docking points) a flawed way to punish the teams," said a former India pacer on condition of anonymity. "If you are playing in England or Australia, you obviously pick four pacers. All things being equal, I agree that 90 overs should be bowled in the allotted six hours but that's not always the case. As hours roll by, bowlers will not have the same energy levels as they would at the start of the day. You have to consider the human element in it.

"As a match official, you have to look at players' intent. Whether there is a deliberate attempt to slow things down... I won't be surprised to see if a team that wins more matches and plays better quality cricket ends up not making the final while a team with less wins actually goes through to the final."

While ICC's moves to speed up things are well-intentioned, there is a definite need to address the shortcomings. Maybe they can make on-field umpires more accountable to ensure not much time is wasted, or have a cap on the maximum number of points that can be deducted per match, or even refrain from sanctioning teams if there is an outright outcome. As in most cases, justice must not just be done, it must be seen to be done.