In October 2008 the Marylebone Cricket Club changed Law 6 of the Laws of Cricket. Law 6 concerns the bat, what it’s made from, how its made and even how it can be repaired if damaged. Two innovations in bat manufacture sparked this rare reaction from the MCC, these laws aren’t changed very often. Since the first codified rules were written in 1744, the chronology of changes affecting the bat is, 1774 (first rule for the bat), 1809, 1979, and 2008.
In this latest episode, the first innovation was the colourful (or glaring) glass-fibre sheet covering the back of the Kookaburra bats launched in December 2004. The second is the carbon-fibre composite bat handles produced by Newbery, Puma, and Gray Nicolls from 2006. These bats were rendered illegal by the rule-change, a move which might have served to protect the spirit and balance of the game had a new Mongoose bat not appeared in 2008 and been declared legal. I’ll explain.
Episode 1
In 2004 Kookaburra glued a thin sheet of glass-fibre across the back of their bat, printed some colourful branding and called it a ‘sticker’. Its thickness of approx 0.40mm was a superficial covering that intuitively should add no performance benefit to the bat.
![Kookaburra_Beast[1] Kookaburra_Beast[1]](https://wiredchop.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/kookaburra_beast1.jpg?w=664)
Its thickness was certainly far less than the 1.56mm allowed within the rules for ‘coverings’. Off the back of what appeared to be protests from other bat makers that it contravened the rules, the MCC investigated. Kookaburra put up independent expert evidence that the covering did not improve bat performance, but was intended to increase bat life through prevention of cracks. The MCC said it did improve performance, quoting its own independent expert opinion. It stated that the glass-fibre sheet modified the bat vibration properties, and therefore improved performance. They subsequently ruled the bats illegal under Law 6.2 (2000 code – 2nd edition 2003) relating to covering material, which stated that it “shall not be likely to cause unacceptable damage to the ball”. So it seems more of a supposition by the MCC that the material (on the back of the blade) will cause an increase in performance of the bat, which will then damage the ball. Kookaburra withdrew their bats under much protest and threat of possible legal action. I think they had a point.
I have a 2005 Kookaburra ‘Beast’ in my possession. With a little close inspection, and based on the work we have undertaken on bat vibration, my opinion would sit with Kookaburras. I also reference a research paper called ‘The effect of microstructure on the impact dynamics of a cricket bat’ by Grant and Nixon. The paper reports that “if the density and elastic modulus of a beam could be uniformly increased by a common factor, then the weight and flexural stiffness of the beam would increase in proportion.” The research was looking at the effect of the pressed layer on the face of the bat. The conclusion that I draw is that a performance increase from the glass-fibre covering might only come from placing it on the face of the bat, not the back. It seems the MCC decided that a principle had to be established on new materials, and interpreted their own rule in a way that suited a new agenda to protect the balance of play.
Episode 2
Then, in 2006, along came the carbon-fibre composite handle, with Newbery (the original patent holder), and Puma offering up a product. Gray Nicolls followed in 2007 with the Fusion. The MCC were clearly nervous of the direction some of the manufacturers were taking. The principle concern was that new materials were increasing bat performance and giving the batsmen too much advantage. Action was required to maintain the traditions and spirit of the game. I don’t disagree with that stance, or the manner in which it was dealt with, but I challenge the conclusions being drawn.
Taking advice from engineering researchers at Imperial College, the MCC was offered two options. The first was to impose a bat performance measure, and a test that all bats must undertake, similar to that used for baseball bats in the USA. The second was to limit performance through material constraints. The former would initially be onerous and complex to govern, the latter very simple to initiate and govern. Simple won the day. Law 6 was changed and a 3rd edition of the 2000 code was published in 2008. While this is practical, I believe it is not in the best interests of the game, removing incentives and scope for the manufacturers to bring novelty and excitement to the game through new bat designs. There is one thing in creating a challenging environment for innovation, it is another to constrain it so tightly that all interest is lost.
Finale
And then along came the Mongoose MMi3 cricket bat in 2008. It is unconventional, inspired by Twenty 20, and approved by the MCC. However, in the right hands at the right time this bat can give a significant advantage to the batsmen. Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that the main reason why the MCC changed Law 6? There appears to be an inconsistency in the application of the laws by the MCC. I doubt I’m the only one to notice this, and would hope that some tidying up takes place. As it stands though, the latest change to Law 6 is likely to prevent any innovation of interest in cricket bats for the foreseeable future. What is there left to do, genetically engineer willow trees to create ‘super-willow’?
Epilogue
What effect has all this had on the consumer cricketer? They’ve been exposed to the exciting possibilities of real innovation in cricket bats, and not just minor technical tweaks or design gimmickry. Then they’ve had them taken away. Will it leave a slight sour note around the game? Are the MCC spoil sports? Does the image of the sport portrayed stack-up against other sports vying for our attention? In many ways it does, but not in the primary tool for batsmen – the most visible and potent tool in the game. Compared to other sports, cricket has become anachronistic in its control of the bat laws.
I was glad to come across this article as I was intimate with the cricket bat design a few years ago, it being the subject of my PhD (2006). Our own cricket bat innovation ran afoul of law 6 at the time and it’s good to see how generously the law has been relaxed… You mentioned the Kookaburra ‘beast’ bat and I remember seeing it at the time. My own guess (untested) is that the carbon fibre backing might well improve its impact characteristics. The reasoning is that it should increase the flexural rigidity of the blade (if properly adhered). As a result, less energy in the form of flexural vibration will be ‘lost’ in the blade from impact. This ‘stiffness’ argument would also hold true if the carbon fibre sheet was stuck to the front of the blade but here, it would also come into contact with the ball. If it is assumed the addition of the carbon fibre leads to a stiffer localised impact zone than the blade alone, it is likely that the ball would undergo greater deformation. From memory, a leather ball is particularly poor at recovering elastically (worse than the blade) and so, the overall result may not be as beneficial as when the sheet is placed on the back. Whether this holds water is academic now I suppose, but I’m willing to be corrected!
Ashley Thank you for the comment. I am not 100% certain of my position on the Kookaburra issue, it is an opinion based on informed knowledge like yourself, but not from actual testing. One day I hope to discover the facts, and put the beast to bed. Glad people are reading it and responding with their own view. After all, I put this blog out to stimulate a discussion, and try to be a little provocative.
If my memory serves me well I recall that you did your PhD at Loughborough, and had a hand in a concept that was patented – the laminate birch bat? Which is probably not legal. Did you test this with the MCC?
Regarding the point that the GRP (not carbon fibre) covering might provide a performance enhancement. I think the thickness of this covering at 0.4mm is the key here. Short of doing the tests, intuitively the stiffness of a 0.4mm GRP sheet should have very little effect on the overall flexural rigidity of the blade. Consequently it should have very little effect on performance. There may possibly be a very small increase at best, but is that enough to say that it is tilting the balance in favour of the batsmen? I don’t think so, especially in the light of the new trend in bats being produced for T20.
Kookaburra argued vociferously that it had no impact on performance, based on work undertaken by their research partners RMIT in Melbourne. Now, not being naive enough to think that they would always argue for their product, I think the MCC had decided that it just wasn’t going to be allowed therefore no evidence from Kookaburra would have helped. As in my blog, and as far as I can tell, the MCC banned it under a law relating to coverings and potential damage to the ball, where the limit for coverings was 1.56mm – since there was no other clause in Law 6 that was relevant. Kookaburra threatened legal action, but in the end it looked like they decided it wasn’t worth the risk to their reputation to go up against the establishment, and bowed out with some dignity.
David
Very interesting and informative page. Ashley – is your phd available online, or would you be able to email me a copy?
I always read your blogs something everyday because I like your thought and I got much advice after read you. I tell to my other friends about this & it’s blog. I hope you will read my this comment and you will remember me. i want you to always make new articles like this. I appreciate this.
Thanks a lot.
I DONT UNDERSTAND/ IF A BATSMAN DON’T KNOW HOW TO CONNECT A BAT PROPERLY/ WHAT CAN A BAT DO/ INNOVATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED/ INNOVATION WILL TAKE CRICKET TO A FURTHER MORE ADVANCED AND CHALLENGING GAME