Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 57

Thread: Rules that need to change

  1. #31
    cpr
    cpr is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year cpr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    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.

    Very fair argument. But say a team had a fast start to the innings, but a slow finish (mebbie last couple of tail-enders trying to bat out the overs), they then restrict the opposition early on without getting many wickets, leaving a couple of decent middle order batsmen on a tough but managable run chase.... a deliberate go slow is more likely to be an advantage rather than a hinderance.

    Mebbie losing their best scoring overs would be a better penalty for those not bowling to speed
    "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

  2. #32
    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
    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.
    I'm saying nothing on the grounds that we have plenty of ladies contribute to Cricket Web, and they do a valuable job.

    <quack> Making the teas
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  3. #33
    International Vice-Captain Jungle Jumbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    - An extra fielder (making it three) should be allowed behind the popping crease line on the leg side instead of two as of today. This must be tried at least on an experimental basis for a year in first class cricket to see the effect.
    Wasn't that rule brought in in the first place to stop negative leg theory bowling?
    Last edited by Jungle Jumbo; 24-03-2006 at 01:45 PM.

  4. #34
    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 Pedro Delgado
    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.
    Neil Unfairbrother, Brad Cheaty-Hodge - two men (barely), one mission (beat Derbyshire), no morals.


  5. #35
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,736
    It is rarely the case that the fielder hits the stumps and the batsman get extra runs and it is an example of "good cricket". In the vast majority of cases it is the result of the fielder throwing in the ball unnecessarily.

  6. #36
    International Debutant Pedro Delgado's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Derby, England.
    Posts
    2,939
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie
    Neil Unfairbrother, Brad Cheaty-Hodge - two men (barely), one mission (beat Derbyshire), no morals.
    We'd have taken sweet revenge a few years later if we hadn't been caught on one of the stickiest wickets ever seen at Lord's.

    Lancs = well, it begins with "c".

    /whinge
    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..

  7. #37
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat
    There are many other instances in cricket where good cricket isn't rewarded, y'know.
    Our friend probably worded his response wrong. It's not that good cricket isn't being rewarded, it's that good cricket is being penalised.

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat
    Anyway, how would one legislate against such a thing? Prevent the batsmen from running after the ball has hit the stumps? Why? Sure a batsman may get a run but they have to weigh up the risk of getting run-out attempting that run too. Anyway, how often does this sort of thing happen where a ball flies off and goes for four?
    Legislation would be simple - once the ball has hit the stumps off a throw, it's dead. No more runs allowed. Also, I never said anything in the initial post about deflections going for four - that is rare. However, in my experience it's a common occurence to see an extra single or two taken off a deflection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat
    Of course you can. It's on very rare occasions where a ball ricochets off so far that back-up fielders don't have it covered.
    Once again, I'll have to disagree. The backup guy is usually 10 meters away, with another guy 10 metres behind him. If a ball deflects at 90 degrees, it's pretty much impossible to avoid giving away extra runs.

  8. #38
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdz
    This is probabaly debatable but when a fielder goes to stop the ball going for four runs and part of his body is touching the rope whilest he has the ball in hand. Don't particulary agree with the rule since the ball didn't legitmately cross the rope.
    Oh yeah! I forgot that one. For mine, if the ball doesn't reach the rope, it shouldn't be four, regardless of whether the fielder touched the rope of not - I mean, the ball hasn't covered the full distance to the boundary has it?

    Perhaps it should stay the way it is for sixes though - otherwise there will be endless pointless debate about whether or not the ball has passed a spot in the air that's directly above the rope/line.

  9. #39
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Quote Originally Posted by mundaneyogi
    Oh yeah! I forgot that one. For mine, if the ball doesn't reach the rope, it shouldn't be four, regardless of whether the fielder touched the rope of not - I mean, the ball hasn't covered the full distance to the boundary has it?

    Perhaps it should stay the way it is for sixes though - otherwise there will be endless pointless debate about whether or not the ball has passed a spot in the air that's directly above the rope/line.
    What if the ball is hit on one bounce and a fielder goes beyond the boundary rope and then pushes the ball back into the field of play?

  10. #40
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    I think the bad light rules need to be reexamined. In the last year there have been lots of examples of players leaving the field in what appeared to be not that bad light. I don't fault the batsmen, as the rules stand they're fools to stay out in difficult condition if they don't have to, but it seems in some cases the rule tends towards preciousness.

    The rule actually states that it would be dangerous for play to continue. Given the improvements in helmets and other protective gear since that rule was drafted, I think either the umpires need to revise their opinion of what's dangerous, or an amendment needs to be introduced that the umpires can direct that spin must be bowled as an alternative to stopping play, but that so long as spin is being bowled, the batsmen have to stay out there and play.

    Its unfair to batsmen in terms of making their job more difficult, but honestly, its test match cricket and so many of the aspects of the game that used to 'test' batsmen's ability to cope in varied conditions are disappearing - when there's merely 'reasonable' light as opposed to 'good' light, they should stay out.

  11. #41
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by adharcric
    What if the ball is hit on one bounce and a fielder goes beyond the boundary rope and then pushes the ball back into the field of play?
    If the ball's been hit that hard a fielder would have to be pretty much right in the ball's path to field it, so he should be inside the rope anyway.

  12. #42
    State Vice-Captain sirjeremy11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,122
    I would relax elligibility rules for the minnows around World Cup time. Let them get 4 or 5 good players each, with any remote connection to their country ie. Ed Joyce if England pick him just so Ireland can't have him, and then not pick him in the squad for the final tournament.
    We will NEVER forgive "Umpire" Ian Robinson

  13. #43
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by sirjeremy11
    if England pick him just so Ireland can't have him
    Would they do that? Ireland aren't exactly a threat...

  14. #44
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    I think the bad light rules need to be reexamined. In the last year there have been lots of examples of players leaving the field in what appeared to be not that bad light. I don't fault the batsmen, as the rules stand they're fools to stay out in difficult condition if they don't have to, but it seems in some cases the rule tends towards preciousness.

    The rule actually states that it would be dangerous for play to continue. Given the improvements in helmets and other protective gear since that rule was drafted, I think either the umpires need to revise their opinion of what's dangerous, or an amendment needs to be introduced that the umpires can direct that spin must be bowled as an alternative to stopping play, but that so long as spin is being bowled, the batsmen have to stay out there and play.

    Its unfair to batsmen in terms of making their job more difficult, but honestly, its test match cricket and so many of the aspects of the game that used to 'test' batsmen's ability to cope in varied conditions are disappearing - when there's merely 'reasonable' light as opposed to 'good' light, they should stay out.
    Hmm, maybe. Still, it's not just a safety issue, it's a wicket retention issue. Remember at the best of times a batsman is one mistake away from being dismissed, but a bowler has plenty of chances to stuff up and not pay such a heavy price. If there are floodlights though, I do agree that they should be utilised whenever possible.

    Another thing to consider is that TV makes the light look better than it really is.

  15. #45
    State Vice-Captain sirjeremy11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,122
    Quote Originally Posted by mundaneyogi
    Would they do that? Ireland aren't exactly a threat...
    Yeah, but I think they may worry about him playing for Ireland affecting any future England chances he has. ie May have to wait a little while to play for England if he plays for Ireland at ODI level.

Page 3 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
  •