Mind you I think 5 Tests v England is the norm in any Ashes series. Due, no doubt, to the vast revenues earned. The commentators on the ABC were talking on the weekend about the different lengths of international series. Kerry O’Keefe (former spinner, current nut case) remarked that a series against England consists of one Test too many…the one England wins.
The Laws of Cricket provide for variations to be agreed for the purposes of specific competitions. This is what happens in the case of Test matches. Playing conditions for Test matches are determined by the International Cricket Conference (ICC) and can be found here. Basically, what they say (in Clause 16.1.5) is that for Test matches there has to be a minimum of 15 overs in the last hour, not 20. There is a further complication in that the “last hour” cannot start until the appropriate number of overs (75 assuming a 6-hour day and no interruptions) has been bowled. This is in contrast to other competitions when the last hour begins, more literally, one hour before the scheduled close of play.
This is a bit weird. Are you sure you’ve got it right? The playing conditions for Test matches state (in Clause 16) that the Start and Cessaion times are to be detemined by the Home Board - Australia in this case, obviously - but are subject to a whole load of qualifications including the one about the minimum number of overs in the “last hour”. So if I’ve read it right, the match would have been extended if the regulation 15 overs had not been bowled in time.
Does anyone else have an alternative take on that? Does anyone know whether 7pm was the scheduled close of play?
And finally:
I’m really impressed. Please can you explain the Duckworth/Lewis method for us?
Sure. That’s that thing that they do when it rains… and stuff 
… yeah.
Yes. Early in the day there was a short rain delay. Amid discussion of possible further delays the commentary team said that the overs would be made up and 90 bowled in the day with the proviso that play would not continue past 7PM. I assume it is a playing condition for the tour. Last time out here in the corresponding Test play went later than I ever recall due to the provisions regarding extension of play on days prior to the last day if a result is considered possible. India lost on the third day. The Test had been threatened by rain and perhaps India felt robbed of the chance of a draw.
Thanks to Kiren Tanna one does not need to understand Duckworth Lewis. A useful tool for one day fans.
Hmmm. The Playing Conditions for the 2003-04 Australian season can be found here. The hours of play for the Australia-India Test series are on page 11 and they say that the scheduled close of play in the Sydney Test was 6pm. The playing hours are the only specific provisions here; otherwise it states that “The Laws of Cricket (2000 Code 2nd Edition - 2003) as modified by ICC Test Match Playing Conditions (September 2003) shall apply to all Test Matches”. So if there was an absolute limit of 7pm, it apparently didn’t come from any Playing Conditions that were specific to the match or to the series.
OK, back to the standard ICC Playing Conditions (see my earlier post for the link). The relevant bit is Clause 16, which unfortunately runs for a bit over 2 pages so the probability of misinterpretation is non-zero! However, the way I read it:
(a) the “last hour” doesn’t start until 75 overs have been bowled (Clause 16.1.4);
(b) the “last hour” lasts as long necessary for the final 15 overs to be bowled (Clause 16.1.1);
© the playing time can be extended by up to one hour, if necessary to make up for time lost due to the weather (Clause 16.1.1c).
So I think that the rain delay might have resulted in the scheduled close of play being extended to 7pm, and Clause 16.1.1c makes it clear that that is an absolute limit. However, play must be extended beyond the (re-)scheduled close if that is necessary in order to complete the minimum number of overs.
In short, I think the commentators got it wrong. But if anybody else wants to plough through this thicket of legalese and offer an alternative opinion, be my guest!
BTW, the Australian Playing Conditions document mentioned above contains a comprehensive description of the Duckworth/Lewis method. It starts on page 140. Unfortunately it runs for 18 pages, including 6 big tables full of numbers and 7 increasingly complicated worked examples! Enjoy…