Pause in bowlers' delivery stride can now be deemed unfair

India’s R Ashwin has been known for pausing in his delivery stride

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has encouraged match officials to use their wisdom to decide if a bowler pausing in his delivery stride is unfair play under Law 42.2. This has been issued as a clarification in the latest, although unpublished, match officials almanac.

This almanac is the same reason why Steve Smith’s catch of Fawad Alam in an ODI earlier this month had been declared legal. Smith had moved from his position of slip to leg slip even before Alam had made contact with the ball, which, even though considered unfair movement as per existing playing conditions, is being encouraged by the ICC as the fielders’ anticipation.

These clarifications have not been published by the ICC as they believe that these are just for better understanding of the law rather than definite changes to the playing conditions. The ICC feels that the early movement of fielders in response to premeditation by batsmen and the bowlers’ pause are changes that have gradually come into the game without being covered by specific laws. As a result, the on-field umpires have now been given greater decision-making power in such cases.

"There is no stopwatch being used to measure the length of the pause," an ICC spokesperson told ESPNcricinfo. "This is one issue where the umpires on the day need to judge what is unfair.

"The pause before delivery has not been specifically outlawed but each incident of this nature will be judged on its merits and will be dealt with under Law 42.2. When the umpires feel that a bowler is deliberately using this tactic unfairly to distract a batsman they can rule dead ball."

The ICC leaving it up to the umpires to decide what significant and unfair movement, in regards to a fielder, or pause, for a bowler, is will undoubtedly lead to different interpretations, thereby creating room for a lot of controversy. The ICC, though, does not concur.

"The Law was designed to prevent a fielder intentionally deceiving a batsman," the ICC said. "It was silent on a fieldsman anticipating where the ball is going based on the movement of a batsman. Cricket did what any other sport would do: prevent a player getting an unfair advantage through deception, but encourage the skill of anticipation and reading the play.

"We have a number of video examples from recent years of a slip fieldsman anticipating where a paddle sweep is going and moving in that direction just before the ball has reached the striker. None of these examples was called dead ball by the umpires on the day when interpreting the same Law, so the 'change' you refer to would have been if we had instructed the umpires to call dead ball in those circumstances.

"The instruction included in the umpire's almanac was a clarification, not a change to what was happening in practice."