The amended Boundary Law and the use of only one ball in ODIs starting in the 35th over are two of the many changes to the playing conditions for men’s international cricket that the ICC recently authorised. The new regulations for white-ball cricket will take effect on July 2, although some of them have already been implemented for the current World Test Championship (WTC) cycle (2025–27).
Here is a thorough analysis of the modifications made to the game’s three formats:
In tests, stop the clock
The ICC implemented a stop clock in limited-overs formats a year ago. Since sluggish over rates have been an issue in the game’s longest format, the top body has now chosen to apply the law to Test cricket as well. The rule states that the fielding side must be prepared to begin an over within one minute of the conclusion of the previous one. If they can’t, the umpires will give them two warnings.
The fielding side will get a five-run penalty following the two warnings. At the conclusion of each block of 80 overs, warnings will be reset to zero. In addition, the clock will be numbered from zero to sixty in an upward direction. Since the 2025–27 WTC cycle began, when Australia faced the West Indies, India faced England, and Bangladesh faced Sri Lanka, the rule has been in effect.
There is no requirement to replace the ball when using saliva on purpose.
Following the COVID-19 epidemic, the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 was the first major cricket league to remove the saliva restriction. But the ICC hasn’t followed that path. Although it is still illegal to use spit on the ball, the ICC has stated that umpires are no longer need to request another ball as soon as they notice saliva on the one being used. The modification was developed to avoid a scenario in which teams try to force a change by purposefully applying saliva to a ball.
The umpires will only switch the ball going forward if it has undergone significant alteration. This has been left up to the umpires’ complete discretion. Additionally, it cannot be changed if the ball starts acting out after the umpires have declared that the administration of saliva has not affected its state. However, five runs will be awarded to the batting team.
Following an out ruling, the DRS technique is used for secondary review.
To comprehend this rule modification, take a look at this example: if the wicketkeeper requests a review after a batter has been out caught. Without making contact with the bat, UltraEdge indicates that the ball has truly kissed the pads. Since he hasn’t nicked the delivery, the hitter is unquestionably not out caught behind. In order to verify whether the hitter is out lbw or not, the third umpire now looks for the second method of dismissal and requests ball-tracking evidence.
According to the old regulation, the default on-field decision for the second form of dismissal, lbw, would likewise be not out during such a review once it was determined that the batter was not out caught. This implies that the hitter would stay in the game if ball-tracking resulted in a “umpire’s call” decision. However, the umpire might not have considered the likelihood of LBW and might have merely given out for the caught behind call.
However, with the rule change, the “original decision” label on the lbw ball-tracking graphic will read “out” when it is presented. The batter would also have to make the arduous trek back to the pavilion if the review results in an umpire’s call decision.
Choosing to use a chronological format when doing combined reviews
Additionally, the ICC has called for a modification in the adjudication process to handle player and umpire referrals in the order that they arise in the event of a combined review. Currently, the third umpire takes up the umpire review before examining the player’s review during a combined review. Rule 3.9 of the updated ICC playing regulations states that “if the conclusion from the first incident is that a batter is dismissed, then the ball would be deemed to have become dead at that point, rendering investigation of the second incident unnecessary.”
Because the caught behind review was completed earlier, the third umpire would now look for it first if there was an appeal for both a caught behind and a run out. The ball would be deemed dead if the batter was out.
Reviewing the catch’s fairness for no-ball
Under the current playing conditions, the TV umpire would not have to decide whether a catch was fair if on-field officials were uncertain whether it had been taken cleanly and the TV umpire informed them it was a no-ball while they were still debating the situation. The batting team will only receive an extra run for the no-ball, though, as the third umpire will now closely examine whether the catch was legitimate in accordance with the revised playing conditions. The batting team would receive the runs the hitters had scored, though, if the catch was not made cleanly.
Intentionally short-term
This rule has an intriguing modification. When a batter was caught taking a short run up until this point, the batting team would receive a five-run penalty. However, under the new regulations, the officials will let the bowling side to choose which batter they want on strike if it is determined that one of the hitters did not intentionally make their ground in order to steal an additional run. Additionally, the five-run penalty will remain a component of the penalty.
According to Rule 18.5.1 of the playing conditions, “a deliberate short run is an attempt for batters to appear to run more than one run, while at least one batter deliberately does not make good their ground at one end.” “Batters may choose to abort a run, provided the umpire believes that there was no intention by the batter concerned to deceive the umpires or to score the run in which they didn’t make their ground.”
Domestic first-class cricket players who are full-time injury substitutes
Boards have been asked by the ICC to test allowing full-time injured substitutes who can step in and play as a member of the squad. Only if the player who is to be substituted has sustained an injury that the match officials can clearly see and feel will this substitution be permitted. Just like with a concussion substitute, the replacement player must be comparable to the original. This would not apply to cricket players who have niggles or pulls in their hamstrings.
It is crucial to remember that this regulation will be used experimentally and that member nations are free to choose whether or not to apply it in their own first-class circuits.
India
