Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 57 of 57

Thread: Rules that need to change

  1. #46
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Jumbo
    Wasn't that rule brought in in the first place to stop negative leg theory bowling?
    Yes it did but at that time there was absolutely no limit. I am saying relax from two to three...and....as I said, on an experimental basis to see if it has a negative fall out before making it permanent.

    It may be possible, with a limit on three combined with a limit on number of bouncers to check the 'bodyline' implications. Again, it has to be seen in practice.

  2. #47
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    It is NEVER going to be difficult to find an argument AGAINST any suggestion for change. Thats a near impossibility. If there was a change that had only positives to commend and not an iota of a negative to counter that, it would have been in place long ago. So the point is not to suggest changes that ARE PERFECT but to look at what we are trying to achieve.

    Hence the changes have to be considered in light of

    - whether the objective that we are trying to achieve (a better balance between bowlers and batsmen lets say) is desirable and if yes,

    - whether the changes bring it about in a reasonably effective manner and

    - whether it outweighs the counter arguments as far as achieving the objective is concerned (not whether it has NO counter arguments)

  3. #48
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    What about not covering pitches anymore?

  4. #49
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,569
    The current bad light situation, which has already been mentioned in this thread, really needs to be worked on.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.


  5. #50
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The current bad light situation, which has already been mentioned in this thread, really needs to be worked on.
    For sure. Seriously, how precious are the cricketers, in relation to bad light? They go off far too easily.

    Another rule that needs to be 'microscoped' is the awarding of leg-byes. Why on earth should you be rewarded for missing the ball?

  6. #51
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,569
    Whilst I see your point regarding players, as they obviously abuse the rule, you can't really blame them. For example if Ntini and Boucher were offered the light today, you couldn't exactly fault them for taking it. They had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose. All the 'eye widening' and other antics which are used by players all over the world to try and get the light offered to them is pretty weak, but I don't really blame them.

    Its the administrators, and to an extent the umpires. There's no clear law. The current written law is so vague and frankly, crap. What they should do is firstly legislate a uniform light reading. Bring back the light metres, why did they suddenly dump those? And also the rule in regards to pace bowlers and spinners needs to be clear as well. Firstly, one must be able to seperately define spin from pace. For example if an umpire says "Well you can't bowl Brett Lee, and hell even Andrew Symonds with his seam ups is getting a bit shaky now, you have to bowl spin from both ends", then firstly this must be an official law whereby spinners get more leeway, rather than just being something that umpires use, because thats inconsistent. Secondly, the definition of spinners is important. I'm sure its harder to pick up a spinner like Kumble or Afridi in the dark compared to a Warne or Kaneria. Is it then fine to bowl all spinners, or only certain ones?

    Such a crap rule. Its all over the place right now, and it was only a little while ago that it cost England a test match against SA (SA were 8 wickets down, Ntini had just been smacking fours and was suddenly offered the light) and here it almost cost Australia a test match. I reckon if Bucknor wasn't out there, and it was Doctrove and someone else SA may have been offered the light. Doctrove wanted to go off IMO, but Bucknor seemed like he thought it was fine to keep playing. Inconsistencies like that just can't occur.

    Imagine if this happened in the 5th test of an Ashes test match with the game and series on the line. For example England, current holders of the Ashes is 9 down and 150 runs behind. A win is out of the question, and the series is square at 2-2. Obviously they want the draw to hold the Ashes, and with the light problem anything could happen, and with it being so vague the backlash (whether it was given to the batsman or not) would be huge from all corners.

  7. #52
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,786
    Oh I don't blame the South Africans at all today for squinting; shaking their heads; rubbing their eyes. As you say, you'd be crazy not to do it.

  8. #53
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    What about not covering pitches anymore?
    That would be fantastic. We would see a new challenge all together for the batsmen and no doubt there would emerge a new breed of players who would handle these conditions (of a sticky) better than others.

    Yes that would be great but I doubt if most players around the world would agree to this change.

  9. #54
    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 Jono
    The current bad light situation, which has already been mentioned in this thread, really needs to be worked on.
    You used to get paid more for working the twilight shift. Perhaps we could consider that approach?
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  10. #55
    U19 Cricketer albo97056's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    London and UEA Norwich
    Posts
    455
    "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."

    I may be wrong but i seem to remember hearing that the laws have been changed and it no longer says "dangerous"...its something like... "if it is UNFAIR for the batting side" or something to that effect....

  11. #56
    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 albo97056
    "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."

    I may be wrong but i seem to remember hearing that the laws have been changed and it no longer says "dangerous"...its something like... "if it is UNFAIR for the batting side" or something to that effect....

    It's Law 3.9:

    Suspension of play for adverse conditions of ground, weather or light
    (a) (i) All references to ground include the pitch. See {error}.
    (ii) For the purpose of this Law and {error} only, the batsmen at the wicket may deputise for their captain at any appropriate time.

    (b)If at any time the umpires together agree that the condition of the ground, weather or light is not suitable for play, they shall inform the captains and, unless
    (i) in unsuitable ground or weather conditions both captains agree to continue, or to commence, or to restart play,
    or (ii) in unsuitable light the batting side wishes to continue, or to commence, or to restart play,
    they shall suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to restart.

    (c) (i) After agreeing to play in unsuitable ground or weather conditions, either captain may appeal against the conditions to the umpires before the next call of Time. The umpires shall uphold the appeal only if, in their opinion, the factors taken into account when making their previous decision are the same or the conditions have further deteriorated.
    (ii) After deciding to play in unsuitable light, the captain of the batting side may appeal against the light to the umpires before the next call of Time. The umpires shall uphold the appeal only if, in their opinion, the factors taken into account when making their previous decision are the same or the condition of the light has further deteriorated.

    (d) If at any time the umpires together agree that the conditions of ground, weather or light are so bad that there is obvious and foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire, so that it would be unreasonable or dangerous for play to take place, then notwithstanding the provisions of (b)(i) and (b)(ii) above, they shall immediately suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to restart. The decision as to whether conditions are so bad as to warrant such action is one for the umpires alone to make.
    The fact that the grass and the ball are wet and slippery does not warrant the ground conditions being regarded as unreasonable or dangerous. If the umpires consider the ground is so wet or slippery as to deprive the bowler of a reasonable foothold, the fielders of the power of free movement, or the batsmen of the ability to play their strokes or to run between the wickets, then these conditions shall be regarded as so bad that it would be unreasonable for play to take place.

    (e) When there is a suspension of play it is the responsibility of the umpires to monitor the conditions. They shall make inspections as often as appropriate, unaccompanied by any of the players or officials. Immediately the umpires together agree that conditions are suitable for play they shall call upon the players to resume the game.

    (f) If play is in progress up to the start of an agreed interval then it will resume after the interval unless the umpires together agree that conditions are or have become unsuitable or dangerous. If they do so agree, then they shall implement the procedure in (b) or (d) above, as appropriate, whether or not there had been any decision by the captains to continue, or any appeal against the conditions by either captain, prior to the commencement of the interval.


    Open to as many interpretations as anyone could wish for on a rainy Spring evening. That's just been lifted straight off the Lord's website - no mention of 'unfair' but I heard Rudy Koertzen use that very word.

  12. #57
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,786
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie

    Open to as many interpretations as anyone could wish for on a rainy Spring evening. That's just been lifted straight off the Lord's website - no mention of 'unfair' but I heard Rudy Koertzen use that very word.
    Yeah, it'd have to be part of it - implied or otherwise. Silly how people argue that it's strictly a safety-based rule, and because the batsman's safety is not at risk, play should continue. Well, with spinners operating, a batsman's safety is never at risk. So, does this mean you can play at mid-night? Of course not. 'Unfairness' to the batsman has to be part of the consideration, or you could play in an absolute darkness.

    That said, cricketers are incredibly precious when it comes to light. I remember back in 1998 when England were chasing down a total against Pakistan. Because a victory was there to be had, the batsmen batted on through light which would normally have seen them leave the ground at least one hour before England eventually won. It was almost dark (in a normal sense, let alone a cricketing sense). Which just goes to show , when it comes to cricketing bad light, how incredibly precious umpires and batsmen normally are.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


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
  •