b) The playing conditions state that the day's play has to end at a particular time, even if the stipulated amount have not been bowled.
This is a recent change, and one which caused some mild outrage during the 2005 Ashes series. Previously, you just kept playing until either the required number of overs had been bowled or it got too dark to keep playing. They changed the playing conditions a couple of years ago to say that play had to stop half an hour after the scheduled stumps (ie, at the end of the over in which the clock ticks over to 6:30). It may be different outside England and Australia, not sure.
ended up bowling 89 overs by 6:29pm. The umpires had a choice to either stop play then, or go ahead, as they did, and finish the 90 overs. I don't think however, they would've done the same thing had only 88 or fewer overs had been bowled. Nope. The umpires have no choice in this situation. If the clock hasn't ticked over to 6:30 by the time they're in position for the next over, then the next over gets bowled, regardless of whether it's the 80th or 89th or 90th.
no subject
This is a recent change, and one which caused some mild outrage during the 2005 Ashes series. Previously, you just kept playing until either the required number of overs had been bowled or it got too dark to keep playing. They changed the playing conditions a couple of years ago to say that play had to stop half an hour after the scheduled stumps (ie, at the end of the over in which the clock ticks over to 6:30). It may be different outside England and Australia, not sure.
ended up bowling 89 overs by 6:29pm. The umpires had a choice to either stop play then, or go ahead, as they did, and finish the 90 overs. I don't think however, they would've done the same thing had only 88 or fewer overs had been bowled.
Nope. The umpires have no choice in this situation. If the clock hasn't ticked over to 6:30 by the time they're in position for the next over, then the next over gets bowled, regardless of whether it's the 80th or 89th or 90th.