Steve Smith's Catch Shows Why ICC Should Make Laws to Improve Cricket

Yesterday, Steve Smith pulled off one of the catches of the year during Australia's One Day International victory over Pakistan.

As left-handed Pakistan batsman Fawad Alam shaped to sweep the ball from middle stump towards fine-leg, Smith, fielding at first slip, noticed Alam's movement and shifted his weight right, sprinting around behind wicket-keeper Brad Haddin. And as Alam made contact with the ball Smith continued his sprint, following the trajectory of the ball before meeting it where a leg slip would have been, taking a comfortable catch. It was a remarkable display of anticipation and quick-thinking. 

A furious debate followed regarding whether what Smith had done was within the laws of the game.

Until recently, such a move from Smith would have been regarded as against the laws of the game for clause 41.7 stated:

"

7) Any significant movement by any fielder after the ball comes into play and before the ball reaches the striker is unfair. In the event of such unfair movement the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball.

8) Definition of significant movement

a) For close fielders anything other than minor adjustments to stance or position in relation to the striker is significant.

"

However, it later transpired on commentary that the ICC has adapted the law for international cricket to allow fielders a degree of movement at the discretion of the umpires. This change to the playing conditions is a work in progress and was not common knowledge to people outside the administration of the game.

Thus, whether Smith was or was not breaking the laws of the game is unclear. Yet what is clear is that the ICC appear to be pushing the existing law in the right direction, and what is clearer still is that what Smith did was an extraordinary display of skill.

The Laws of Cricket are not sacrosanct; they are not holy vows or sacred covenants. They are merely a set of arbitrary regulations that together create a framework detailing how a sport should be played. A sport that in the modern world exists, fundamentally, as a vehicle for entertainment. 

It is therefore only logical to conclude that cricket's laws should exist to maximise the entertainment of those watching.

Room should always be found within the laws of the cricket for things that make cricket better.

No ethereal concepts of tradition, history or sanctimonious "this-is-not-how-it-was-meant-to-be" arguments should dissuade changes being made that improve cricket as a sport and as a spectacle.

Over-arm bowling? Makes cricket better. Permit it.

The googly? Makes cricket better. Allow it.

Kevin Pietersen's switch-hit? Makes cricket better. Find a way to legalise it.

The Dilscoop? Makes cricket better. Let it slide.

The doosra? Makes cricket better. Legalise it.

Steve Smith's catch? Makes cricket better. Let it happen.