Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 57

Thread: Rules that need to change

  1. #16
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat
    The fielding side would basically have gotten a wicket without actually doing anything. Why reward something (a wicket is a pretty big reward for backing up a bit too far too) which requires no skill to do it?
    Well batsmen get runs without doing anything dont they. But yes I see your point.

  2. #17
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,261
    Disallowing leg byes is another thing which can be considered. Just imagine, an in swinging yorker hits the batsman's boot just outside the line of the off stump (a sure clean bowled but for the boot) and the ball screams to the fence and maybe thats the end of the match.

    Not too fair, is it?

  3. #18
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,725
    I always though they should delete leg byes, the batsman was not good enough to hit the ball, and yet the team gets runs.

    Or even worse the bowler beats the batsman completly, the ball strikes the batsman on the hip (ouch) giving the keeper no chance and the ball goes for four runs.
    You know it makes sense.

  4. #19
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,138
    You are right when it is in the middle of the game but imagine at the fag end of a game with maybe a couple of runs needed and the last pair going for a desparate run, the poor fielder may be faced with an absolutely impossible choice. He will be cursed if he doesnt throw and cursed if he sends it for over throws.
    Yeah but that's life, isn't it? You take a risk and if it comes off, reap the benefits. If it doesn't, life sucks. It's all part of the game (which, contrary to popular belief, it still is). You win some, lose some.

    Disallowing leg byes is another thing which can be considered. Just imagine, an in swinging yorker hits the batsman's boot just outside the line of the off stump (a sure clean bowled but for the boot) and the ball screams to the fence and maybe thats the end of the match.

    Not too fair, is it?
    Indeed it strictly isn't but, put in the situation myself as I've been before (bowling the last-over, not many to win, etc.), an in-swinging yorker isn't a high-percentage ball because of the risk of that happening. Similarly unfair is if I bowl a bouncer which a batsman gets a top-edge to and gets four winning the match. It's still a low-percentage tactic and put in the situation, I try to avoid doing stuff like that. If I give a ball like that a go, I do so with the full awareness that although I might force the issue and nab a wicket, it may well all go to crap too. Deciding on tactics, etc. is all part of the fun and that uncertainty is what gives those moments their magic. It's what gives cricket it's x-factor. If I, as a bowler, knew a batsman couldn't get runs if they didn't hit the ball with their bat, the uncertainty would be lost a bit and the game would be a bit easier for me. I dunno about you, but I don't want cricket to be easy.

    Perfect example; Tied Test 1961. The ball that got Benaud (top-edge hook to a player who played it well) could so easily have flown away for four which would have cost the WI the game. But Wes Hall took the risk and got him. The fact it had risk was what made the moment great and Wes Hall's action all the gutsier. If he'd gone for four, Wes Hall would have been derided as stupid. As the great Nigel Tufnel said in 'This is Spinal Tap', "There's a fine line between clever and stupid."
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 23-03-2006 at 11:23 PM.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp


  5. #20
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,437
    Bring back the unlimited bouncer rule - more the merrier I say. Umpire still has discretion to penalise bowlers for intimidatory bowling, time wasting, etc.

    Allow dismissals for obstructing the field if a batsman deliberatley alters course to protect the stumps when in danger of being run out.

    Do away with the lbw law that states that you cant be out if struck outside the line of off stump if playing a shot. Umpire has enough to worry about without worrying whether the batsman got 1 mm outside off.

  6. #21
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    I actually agree with Top_Cat. Sure, you can think of many rules which might be unfair in bizarre situations, but why legislate so much? Some of these suggested legislations, like the no-ball change, make sense. But consider the idea of calling play dead upon a deflection following a throw at the stumps ... what if there's a fielder for back-up but the ball passes him 1 foot to his left? 3 feet? 5 feet? A distinction will have to be made between poor fielding and an unfortunate deflection. This will really make the game annoying. With the game on the line though, as SJS said, it might be worth it. We can point out rules for the sake of pointing them out, but not every single potentially flawed rule should be changed without considering the 'annoying' and 'tedious' factor it would bring into the game.

  7. #22
    cpr
    cpr is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year cpr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    9,966
    One that always irks me is when a batsman plays a 'shot' to a spinner just outside of off-stump and it ever so accidently hits his pads.... you know what i mean. Its a bit like diving in football, simulating play to cover the fact you've been had

    If the balls gonna hit the stumps and hits the pad, regardless of where it pitches, i reckon it should be given out. Now with balls pitching outside the line of the stumps, its upto the umpire to judge, and he'll probably be in doubt so give not out. They'll miss some, they'll make some great calls. We'll all cry about it at some point. But its still fairer than it automatically being not out
    "All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
    Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
    GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
    Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
    Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers

  8. #23
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,694
    I don't think fielders should be allowed to almost wear a suit of armour and stand intimidatingly close to the batsman. They should only be allowed to stand as close as they feel they dare with only minimal protection.

  9. #24
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Voltman
    So it's the backing-up fielder's fault if the ball deflects off at a 90 degree angle? I don't think so...

    I agree with mundaneyogi - players aren't rewarded for good cricket in that instance.
    The batsmen are - and surely it was good judgement of the circumstances (and therefore from their perspective good cricket) that allowed them to safely get home?
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  10. #25
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson
    I don't think fielders should be allowed to almost wear a suit of armour and stand intimidatingly close to the batsman. They should only be allowed to stand as close as they feel they dare with only minimal protection.
    A condom?

  11. #26
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,694
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie
    A condom?
    Certainly in women's cricket it would be a good rule change if the umpires were obliged to give them out if they're ugly.

  12. #27
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson
    Certainly in women's cricket it would be a good rule change if the umpires were obliged to give them out if they're ugly.
    ...

  13. #28
    International Debutant Pedro Delgado's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Derby, England.
    Posts
    2,939
    Quote Originally Posted by sirjeremy11
    How about the rule that states that Dion Nash hit a four and not a six at Brisbane vs Sth Africa all those years ago. That was a crock. It hit the back rope!!!!
    I'll add: The arcane rule that allowed Neil Fairbrother to claim a catch whilst standing on the rope.



    I'm not bitter, I'm sooooo over it already.
    Last edited by Pedro Delgado; 24-03-2006 at 01:20 AM.
    Member of the Rosalie Birch Appreciation Society (RBAS)
    Member of CVAAS - go Joe

    You're a ghost la la la la la la la la laaa
    You're a ghost la la la la la la la la laaa
    I'm the church and I've come
    To claim you with my iron drum
    la la la la la la la la la la


    The wolves are running..

  14. #29
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,676
    Something about over-rates.

    In OD games if the 50 aren't bowled by the cut off, you finish the overs then only receive that many when you bat.

    If you're bowling second, you lose the last few overs off your score if you don't get them in in time.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  15. #30
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Bring back the unlimited bouncer rule - more the merrier I say. Umpire still has discretion to penalise bowlers for intimidatory bowling, time wasting, etc.

    Allow dismissals for obstructing the field if a batsman deliberatley alters course to protect the stumps when in danger of being run out.

    Do away with the lbw law that states that you cant be out if struck outside the line of off stump if playing a shot. Umpire has enough to worry about without worrying whether the batsman got 1 mm outside off.
    I like those ideas. Particularly the 2nd one...it really annoys me to see batsmen doing that.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Cricket Web Forum Rules
    By James in forum Cricket Web Forum Announcements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 08:54 AM
  2. **Pitch Condition Change Thread**
    By Blewy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-04-2006, 09:15 AM
  3. Change of rules?
    By jat_inc in forum Fantasy Cricket
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-02-2004, 03:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •