Rules that need to change

[16 tins of Spam]

We all love the game of cricket, no doubt about that, but it isn't perfect. There are arcane little rules and technicalities that annoy, that aren't fair, or perhaps negatively affect a good contest. And then there was the supersub.

My particular bugbear is that a fielder can throw the stumps down and, provided the batsman isn't run out, he can then continue to run off the deflection. To me that's not fair - a fielder has done a smart bit of work, hit the stumps, and then gets penalised for it.

Any thoughts? Does anyone else get irritated by a particular rule?

[adharcric]

Obstructing the field should always be valid if it involves Inzamam, because that means we'll get to hear an amusing statement from him after the incident.

That's all I have to say.

[Top_Cat]

My particular bugbear is that a fielder can throw the stumps down and, provided the batsman isn't run out, he can then continue to run off the deflection. To me that's not fair - a fielder has done a smart bit of work, hit the stumps, and then gets penalised for it.

In that particular instance, the extra run isn't penalising that fielder, though; it's penalising the peanut(s) who wasn't/weren't backing up the throw.

For mine, the front-foot no-ball rule has to change. It's so hard to get it right and umpires routinely bugger it up and the umpires' attempting to get it right affects their ability to judge things once the ball has left the bowler's hand (i.e. LBW's and fine nicks). I see virtually no advantage being gained by a bowler being 1mm in front of the line vs 1mm behind it yet one results in a no-ball and the other does not and denies some bowlers wickets. And with really close ones, parallax errors mean umpires can sometimes err and no-ball a legitimate delivery which sometimes results in denied wickets.

So I say, sacrifice the front-foot rule, either revert to the back-foot rule or make the no-ball calls automatic and make umpires' jobs easier in adjudicating decisions at the really important end.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

In that particular instance, the extra run isn't penalising that fielder, though; it's penalising the peanut(s) who wasn't/weren't backing up the throw.

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.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

In that particular instance, the extra run isn't penalising that fielder, though; it's penalising the peanut(s) who wasn't/weren't backing up the throw.

you cant really back up a throw that hits the stumps, depending on the angle to which the ball hits the stumps, it can ricochet in any direction really.

[adharcric]

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.

If the fielder was accurate enough to hit dead center of the middle stump, it wouldn't deflect for any runs. If you're not good enough to hit the perfect spot to the exact millimeter, runs should definitely be scored.

On a serious note, have more than one backup man, a spread-out backup field so to speak.

[sirjeremy11]

Originally Posted by adharcric

On a serious note, have more than one backup man, a spread-out backup field so to speak.

Mostly that is just not an option. Especially when you have four slips and three gullies, and you're trying to run out the non striker.

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by sirjeremy11

Mostly that is just not an option. Especially when you have four slips and three gullies, and you're trying to run out the non striker.

agreed.

[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.

[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!!!!

[Top_Cat]

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.

There are many other instances in cricket where good cricket isn't rewarded, y'know. Edges just falling short of slips or wide of the fielder which go for four, batsmen nailing a ball down the ground only for the ball to hit the stumps at the non-striker's end, etc. It's all part of the game. All I'm saying is that a fielder doesn't have to take a shot at the stumps; it's a potentially low-percentage move and there are risks as well as benefits. Benefit; speedier run-out attempt where using fielder to take the bails off may be too slow to effect an out. Risk; ball may miss or ricochet off for runs. You want to take a throw at the stumps? Feel free. Doesn't mean it's not a low-risk move and that you should be protected if doesn't go your way.

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? Maybe a few times per international season. In short; bugger-all. Certainly not often enough that it should be legislated against.

you cant really back up a throw that hits the stumps, depending on the angle to which the ball hits the stumps, it can ricochet in any direction really.

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. If it gets past them, generally they're not back far enough to cover the possibility. Good fielders know this which probably explains why this scenario happens so seldom in any international season.

[SJS]

- Knocking down of stumps by a fielder resulting in the ball being declared dead (except for the completion of the run in the process of being completed is fair enough and sound too.

- It makes sense to revert to the backfoot rule for no balls. Not only does it make the umpires job easier, it also gives the batsmen to take advantage of the no ball. That penalty for the bowler , that the batsman may slog, is virtually removed today for the bowlers.

- We might consider allowing a run out off a straight drive even if the ball did not touch the bowler's body. The non-striker IS taking advantage in a way and should run some risk. I know this can be debated but I feel small changes that adjust the balance a bit are to be considered.

- 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.

- I know this will be unpopular but with the HUGE improvement in bats and the 'throw' off them. Boundaries should be made a bit bigger and a tighter range should be prescribed within which all international grounds' boundaries must stay.

[Top_Cat]

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!!!!

Actually, it hit the inside half of the rope which is why they called it four instead of six. Perfectly in line with the rules.

That said, I have always thought that the rope should be the boundary and if the ball, in any way, hits it on the full, it's six. Which is why I thought he should have been awarded six too.

[Top_Cat]

- We might consider allowing a run out off a straight drive even if the ball did not touch the bowler's body. The non-striker IS taking advantage in a way and should run some risk. I know this can be debated but I feel small changes that adjust the balance a bit are to be considered.

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?

More generally, why do people feel the need to legislate the crap out of the game? I mean, if you're talking cost/benefit, changing the front-foot no-ball rule has so many benefits whilst sacrificing just a little bit of accuracy on the popping-crease. Enshrining stuff about deflecting balls off stumps, etc. in legislation seems like adding rules for the sake of it considering how not very often those situations come up in any given international season.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

. Anyway, how often does this sort of thing happen where a ball flies off and goes for four? Maybe a few times per international season. In short; bugger-all. Certainly not often enough that it should be legislated against.

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.

Its not always possible to have a back up for the first run. It dioesnt need a big argument to show what kind of field placings can create a situation where a throw off a tight first run will be impossible to back up.