Sign up ×
Sports Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for participants in team and individual sport activities. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We know that slow over rate is an issue of the fielding team that can be punished by ICC.

In June 2012 Misbah ul-Haq got punished (banned for one match) but their players didn't get that.

But in May 2012, England v West Indies, 1st Test, all the players of WI got punishment.

Which team has gotten the most punishments for slow over rate? I think it's possible to trace this out.

Bonus question, if it's even possible to answer: Which player has gotten the most punishments for slow over rate including overall formats of cricket?

share|improve this question
+1 Nice question and a hard one to answer as no such track record has been kept in the history hope it will start counting soon..:)... – NetStarter Jun 18 '13 at 11:15
I also didn't find any link ;) – Ashutosh Mishra Jul 4 '13 at 14:37

1 Answer 1

Since there isn't any track record of teams or players, that are penalized for slow over rate, It is hard to say any exact name. ICC have now introduced the punishment in the shape of Fine as deduction from the Match Fees. It's the captain usually, now a days, which is fined some percentage of his match fee if his team bowled with slow over rate. But back in time in the 90's and early 2000's, some overs were reduced from the 50 over quota of the bowling side, when they came out to bat in the second innings. As I far as I know, it's Pakistan most of the time, that has to face the over reduction penalty, because their fast bowlers used to give a good amount of Extras in terms of Wides, No-Balls etc, which ultimately result in slow over rate and they had to face 1 or 2 or even 3 over reduction from their 50 overs quota.

share|improve this answer
Do you have any reference for your assertion that Pakistan have had the most punishments? – Philip Kendall Dec 15 '14 at 15:25
My brain is the reference! :) Read the first line of my answer again! – sohaiby Dec 15 '14 at 17:38
I've read the first line of the answer again and it's remarkably unconvincing - just because you can't find it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. – Philip Kendall Dec 15 '14 at 23:08

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.