Recently, Sony Entertainment Television's MAX and SAB channels devoted a segment of one of its "EXTRAA INNINGS" chat shows connected with its coverage of the World Cup to a brief debate on what it - embarrassingly for me - called "ASHIS'S LAW". Ian Chappell and Arjuna Ranatunga, former captains of Australia and Sri Lanka respectively, were participants in this programme, along with yours truly.

The discussion stemmed from the preface in my recently published book, "One-Day Cricket: The Indian Challenge", wherein, among other suggestions, I wrote: "I would also love to see a debate on Law 1.2 (Nomination of Players) of the game, which states: 'Each captain shall nominate his players in writing to one of the umpires before the toss. No player may be changed after the nomination without the consent of the opposing captain.'

The ICC and the MCC could consider amending this regulation so as to allow the sides losing the toss to make one switch in their eleven. They would, thus, have the option of playing an extra bowler (perhaps a seamer to exploit morning conditions) if they field first or an extra batsmen if they are sent in to bat in adverse circumstances. With so much money at stake, the spin of the coin should, ideally, not be over-influential in any match (and this includes tests). In effect, the change in the law could emerge as a refined version of the failed 'Super Sub' (a player who replaced one in the original eleven in course of a match and enjoyed a right to bat or bowl and not just field, as a 12th man does) experiment."

The first known version of the Laws of Cricket was issued in 1744. While the "toss" is undoubtedly an ingenious and sportsmanlike method of commencing a contest, it's a concept of a purely amateur age, when cricket was nothing more than a pastime and when the outcome of a match was less consequential. Besides, this is more digestible in a four innings match - as opposed to an ODI. Indeed, in the era of uncovered, if a side were inserted on a treacherous wicket after losing the toss, they simply had to lump this.

Cricket is, today, a professional pursuit, having a considerable bearing on livelihoods of players, who have a limited career span. Furthermore, significant sums of money are involved between winning and losing - Rs10 crores (Rs 100 million) to the winners of the current competition, not to mention the huge supplementary gains from such success.

Chappell's reaction to the proposed change was unfavourable. His arguments were, firstly, cricketers essentially played for honour and for the love of the game and, secondly, it was the duty of participants to pick a balanced side. I had no disagreement with either. The fact is, though, dimensions of remuneration and prize money have become integral to domestic, let alone international cricket. As for choosing an eleven for all contingencies, this is easier said than done.

While pitch conditions have varied in the current World Cup, they have, except in one case, not been unfair to the team losing the toss. That was when South Africa had to bat first on a damp wicket at Grenada. In the modern day, high stake scenario even this solitary instance was one too many.

Ultimately, an exchange on TV is only an academic exercise. If Ranatunga, who is a member of the ICC's Cricket Committee, which is chaired by Sunil Gavaskar, can manage to include the subject in a future agenda, the merits or demerits of the proposal can at least be thrashed out by decision-makers. Contemporary cricket is best staged on a level playing field.

(Ashis Ray is author of the recently launched "One-Day Cricket: The Indian Challenge" (Harper Collins), which can be bought online on www.ians.in)

--- IANS