MCC outlaws 'bunny hop' catches; approves new two-ball, concussion rules
London, Jun 14 (PTI): Boundary catches involving 'bunny hops', or multiple airborne touches outside the rope, have been deemed illegal by the Marylebone Cricket Club, with the new ruling set to be integrated into ICC's playing conditions this month and the MCC's laws from October next year.
Spectacular catches like the ones pulled off by Michael Neser during BBL 2023 and Tom Banton, with Matt Renshaw's help in 2020, will not be considered legal once the updated rule comes into force.
According to an MCC note circulated to member boards by the ICC, while the existing law "led to some spectacular" fielding efforts, it also allowed "some unusual-looking catches that, to the majority of the cricketing public, feel unfair".
Describing Neser's catch for Brisbane Heat to dismiss Jordan Silk, the MCC said the fielder "bunny hopped" before completing the catch inside the boundary. While the act complied with the law at the time, the note added it "felt like the fielder had - quite literally - gone too far".
Both instances triggered widespread debate, prompting the ICC and MCC to review Law 19.5.2, which was last updated in 2010.
As part of its revision, the MCC clarified that any fielder making a second contact with the ball after jumping from beyond the boundary must land inside the field of play, or else a boundary will be awarded.
"MCC has devised a new wording where the 'bunny hop' wholly beyond the boundary is removed, but these catches where the fielder pushes the ball up from inside the boundary, steps outside and then dives back in to catch the ball, are permitted," the note said.
"Our solution has been to limit any fielder who has gone outside the boundary to touching the ball while airborne only once, and then, having done so, to be wholly grounded within the boundary for the rest of the duration of that delivery."
The rule will also apply to relay catches. If a fielder parries the ball while airborne outside the boundary and fails to return inside the field before the catch is completed — even by a teammate — it will be ruled a boundary.
"Even if the ball is parried - to another fielder or inside the field of play - if the fielder lands outside the boundary, or subsequently steps outside, then a boundary will be scored.
"For clarity, that means the fielder gets one chance, and one chance only, to touch the ball having jumped from outside the boundary. After that point, the boundary becomes a hard line - and any time they touch the ground in that delivery, whatever else happens, they must be inside."
The revised rule will be enforced starting June 17, when the new World Test Championship (WTC) cycle begins with Sri Lanka taking on Bangladesh in Galle. The change in the laws will officially take effect from October 2026.
Two-ball, concussion rule changes
The ICC has also approved the two-ball rule changes in ODIs along with the concussion substitute regulations in men’s cricket.
At present, two new balls are being used per innings — one at either end.
But from now on, two new balls are permitted to be used until the 34th over, and after that particular over, the bowling side will choose one of the two balls for the rest of the innings (35th to 50th over).
But if the match is reduced to 25 overs a side or less before the first innings, then only one new ball will be allowed to use.
As per amended concussion protocols, the teams will have to name their substitutes to the match referee before the match, and it includes one each of wicketkeeper, batter, pace bowler, spinner and all-rounder.
The MCC has changed the law to make catches like this 'bunny hop' one from Michael Neser illegal. In short:
— 7Cricket (@7Cricket) June 14, 2025
If the fielder's first touch takes them outside the boundary, their *second* touch must take them back inside the field of play.
Basically, you're no longer allowed to… pic.twitter.com/1jaqAev0hy
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
