Players, officials and umpires will now know exactly what punishments will be handed out for offences in domestic cricket, following the publication yesterday of a new Bermuda Cricket Board code of conduct.

The code, which offers a range of punishments from official reprimands for excessive appealing through to potential life bans for assaults on umpires, will be in force for this weekend's opening fixtures.

"It is the first step on the road to tightening up disciplinary procedures," said new BCB secretary Marc Wetherhill.

"We will also be looking at overhauling the hearing process to ensure that it is completely fair, open and accountable. But we were keen to get out the code of conduct before the first balls are bowled.

"Part of the aim is to harmonise our code with that of the ICC (International Cricket Council) which we have done to a large extent, apart from certain sections on gambling and Test matches there weren't applicable."

Wetherhill was also keen to promote the code as "player-positive" claiming that the code, and all that it embodies, will help players ? as well as coaches and umpires ? by clearly laying out the offences and their corresponding punishments.

"I think it is good for the players to have something like this laid down and memorialised so everyone knows what the code is and how players and officials will be dealt with for breaching it," added Wetherhill.

"I think it will also help umpires know that they have the Board's backing, as umpires get a lot of support in this code and it will do the players no harm to see that."

Although Wetherhill was unwilling to link the code to any previous punishments meted out to players, it is clear it is a partial attempt to avoid a repeat of the Dion Stovell incident last year, when the promising young cricketer was given a four-month ban for what was only a Level One offence ? which should carry just an official reprimand ? after showing dissent to an umpire while on tour with the Under-23s in Jamaica.

Although it was later revealed there were extenuating circumstances in the Stovell case, the controversial four-month ban still appeared to be an unfounded and arbitrary suspension.