Ahmed Raza will be grateful for a normal day of cricket on Tuesday.
A nice quiet one, where his name is not cropping up in sports news reports on the BBC, Sky Sports, ESPN, the Times of India, plus plenty more besides.
The coach of the UAE women’s team will have cringed about all the attention that came his way this weekend.
Who would have thought a fixture between the UAE and Qatar, in the first phase of Women’s T20 World Cup regional qualifying in Thailand, would cause such a kerfuffle?
It all started with some peals of thunder. The UAE had amassed 192 for no loss in their first 16 overs. More than enough to beat a Qatar side who are still finding their feet in international cricket.
Panicked by the idea rain might prevent them bowling the five overs of Qatar’s innings required for a result to stand – and thus have to share the points – they needed to speed up the game.
Declarations are not permitted in limited-overs cricket, so Raza got creative. He asked all his batters to pad up. They then took turns running out to the middle, very briefly standing at the crease, then retiring out.
It effectively ended the innings immediately, allowing them to start their bowling effort sooner. They promptly bowled Qatar out in double quick time, winning by 163 runs.
Raza’s sole intent had been to get the win. It was informed by plenty of heartache from his own career. He played 17 years of international cricket for the UAE men’s team.
Often, his side missed out on trips to a World Cup or other major tournament due to some arcane law, the vagaries of net run-rate, or just plain bad luck.
If there is anything he could do to prevent his new charges in the women’s national team suffering the same, he will look for it.
He knew how the strategy of 10 retired outs would look. It was telling his first utterance after the match was to beg that it did not detract from Esha Oza’s brilliant century – the fourth of the UAE captain’s sparkling T20I career – or her 192-run stand with Theertha Satish.
His young side have marched up the world rankings to the point where, last weekend, they were granted one-day international status for the first time.
That is a huge achievement, but not one that merited much coverage beyond the Emirates. Not like the raft of retirements against Qatar did.
What will happen next? Most immediately, the national team will be looking to pick up a third win in the qualifier, when they face Malaysia in Bangkok on Tuesday.
Whether they use a similar strategy now, or ever again, remains to be seen. Plenty of people will be watching keenly to see if they do.
Not least those who make the rules. It is almost certain the ICC’s world cricket committee will meet at some point to discuss whether it is necessary to close the loophole Raza exposed.
Cricket’s laws – whether they be those overseen by the MCC which are the basis for the sport, or the playing conditions for international cricket run by ICC – have forever been tweaked. Usually, it has taken a fertile cricket brain to expose a problem. Below are some of the rules of the game that had to be changed.
Limited-overs playing condition 15: Declaration and forfeiture - shall not apply
Raza might not have needed such drastic measures were it not for Brian Rose.
Somerset v Worcestershire in Group A of the 1979 Benson and Hedges Cup might not sound like a big deal, but it was a seminal moment in cricket. After it, declarations were outlawed from limited-overs matches.
As per the rules of the 55-over competition, Somerset only needed to maintain the greater bowling strike-rate which they already had, to ensure progress to the next round.
Rose, their captain, hatched a plan – and, as Raza did, sought clarification of its validity from officials.
He went out to open the batting against Worcestershire, saw off the first ball – a no ball – then immediately declared the innings with the score on one for no loss.
The sides switched round, Worcestershire score the two needed to win, and the game was over, 18 minutes after it started. All with no damage done to the strike-rate permutation.
Somerset did not make it through, though. After outrage and investigations, Rose was deemed to have brought the game into disrepute.
His team were thrown out, and declarations were later struck from the playing conditions. Meaning the need for a cunning ruse like Raza’s.
There is a fundamental difference, though. Rose had no issue losing the game in order to progress towards a greater goal; Raza was doing his best to win it for the same reason.
Law 21.1.2 - Underarm bowling shall not be permitted except by special agreement before the match
Raza said after the Qatar game that he had no intention of disrespecting either the sport or the Qatar side with his plan. No doubt he was wary it could be perceived negatively, or against the intangible “spirit of the game”.
Some unique strategies have caused all sorts of angst. One of the most famous examples was when Greg Chappell, Australia’s captain, instructed his brother Trevor to bowl the last ball of a one-day international against New Zealand underarm.
It meant the New Zealanders had no chance of scoring the six they needed to tie, but it caused a furore that has had long-lasting ramifications.
The most relevant one was that the laws were amended to rule out bowling underarm.
Law 28.3.1 Protective helmets, when not in use by fielders, may not be placed on the ground, above the surface except behind the wicketkeeper and in line with both sets of stumps
All very wordy. But the specifics are necessary. Helmets that are unused by the fielding team have to be placed behind the wicketkeeper.
That limits least likelihood of them being hit, which incurs a five-run penalty for the fielding team. And that was once used as a ploy – before the lawmakers acted.
In a county match at Lord’s, the Middlesex captain Mike Brearley had two helmets stationed as fielders on the leg side.
The thinking was they wanted to induce the right-handed batter to play against the left-arm spin of Phil Edmonds for the reward of five runs, and hopefully induce an error.
It did not work, and the practice was done away with not long after.
28.4 Limitation of on side fielders
This caps the number of fielders allowed behind square on the leg side to just two. Any more than that, and it is a no-ball.
It came about in 1957 for a couple of reasons. The idea was to stop negative bowling tactics where off spinners and inswing bowlers aimed at batters’ legs, and packed the field on that side. Such tactics would stifle runs.
But it also made to limit the effects of hostile bowling at the head and body. That was the tactic most famously employed by Douglas Jardine’s England side to try to combat Don Bradman in the Ashes series of 1932/33 that was known as the 'Bodyline' series.
