Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Penalty for slow over rates

  1. #1
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,029

    Penalty for slow over rates

    In order to speed up slow over rates in cricket today, I think we should have a penatly that really hurts the team trying to slow the game down.

    At the end of the day, if the referee says a certain side should have bowled five extra overs, then the opposition should get extra runs, at the rate of the most runs scored in an over in that innings so far.

    Meaning, lets say India bowl slowly and at the end, they are five overs behind. WI scored 16 off one Pathan over, and that was their highest of one over...then WI would get a bonus score of 16x5= 80 runs.


    That might be excessive, but even doing highest / 2 = 40 runs, its still significant. And unlike the match fee penalties, which isn't that much, this would really light a fire under the captain's collective behinds, and force them to play positively and get the overs in.

    Who knows, maybe we can go back to the days of 17-18 overs/hour just to avoid this situation!

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member steds's Avatar
    Breakout Champion!
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    ****ing cold and ****ing wet
    Posts
    17,205
    I think we should add extra days. This encourages the players to hurry up and get a quick result because they will not be allowed to leave the ground until the game is over, and they will doubtless want a bed to sleep in, rather than the changing room showers.

    I also propose restricting the amount of food available at lunch, depending on how many overs you've bowled. This way Inzamam, Rob Key, Blackwell, Warney and other such players will be forced into bullying their seamers until they bowl 35 overs an hour.

    Finally, I propose the bowlers bowl on Rocket powered roller skates to hurry up the bowler's trudging back to his mark.

  3. #3
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,029
    Quote Originally Posted by steds
    I think we should add extra days. This encourages the players to hurry up and get a quick result because they will not be allowed to leave the ground until the game is over, and they will doubtless want a bed to sleep in, rather than the changing room showers.

    I also propose restricting the amount of food available at lunch, depending on how many overs you've bowled. This way Inzamam, Rob Key, Blackwell, Warney and other such players will be forced into bullying their seamers until they bowl 35 overs an hour.

    Finally, I propose the bowlers bowl on Rocket powered roller skates to hurry up the bowler's trudging back to his mark.

    How about tying them to the post and whipping them if they don't bowl a maiden over? Seriously though, 10-12 overs an hour IMO is unacceptable. And if the test in on the line, the fines arent excessive enough to discourage the players.

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member TT Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    17,481
    West Indies have been dreadfully slow in this test series with run rate. I know Sehwag was creaming them to all parts but the over rate for the first couple of hours (in the second test) was something like eleven or twelve which is not acceptable, when only Jerome Taylor has anything like a run up.

    Penalty runs could work, just calculate run rate with overs lost, so if ten overs have been lost in a day and the run rate for the team is 4, then 40 runs would be added to the teams total after the innings has been completed. Offering the fielding captain the opportunity to make up those overs lost the next day, if he does not, add the runs.

    Injuries, ball loss et cetera would all be taking into account mind.


  5. #5
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,995
    Quote Originally Posted by TT Boy
    West Indies have been dreadfully slow in this test series with run rate. I know Sehwag was creaming them to all parts but the over rate for the first couple of hours (in the second test) was something like eleven or twelve which is not acceptable, when only Jerome Taylor has anything like a run up.
    25 overs in the session, not brilliant, but certainly not unique.
    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.

  6. #6
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,029
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    25 overs in the session, not brilliant, but certainly not unique.

    But I don't think thats a good thing. When I see India do 12-13 overs an hour with two spinners on, it boggles my mind.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,424
    I understand what you're saying about penalising runs, in that it's an immediate sanction that people would actually care about (as opposed to 50% of money that you haven't actually received yet, still leaving you with a massive payment for five days (slack) work), but I think its too severe an alteration to the principles of the game. You wouldn't really feel like you'd won a hard fought test match if you did so because your opponents were penalised 10 runs on a count back.

    I think an alternative would be to ban slow (as in over rate) bowlers from bowling for a while, which could work in the same way that the system stands for bowlers who've been off the field to receive treatment (ie can't bowl for the set period depending how long they were off). At the end of a session, or at drinks breaks, the match referee could, through the umpire, cite specific bowlers as bowling too slowly, and if the warning wasn't heeded, they could be banned from bowling for an hour, or what have you, depending on the severity of the breach.

    The judgement calls would come in defining what is "too slow", there'd need to be some kind of sliding scale that would factor in the length of run ups etc, and events like sixes, wickets, etc that interrupt an over, but a guideline could be worked out for each bowler before a match, advised to them before a match, and then enforced. Not being able to bowl your best bowlers is an immediate penalty, but one that is more in keeping with existing sanctions for things like injury time, and running on the pitch. On top of that, any captain who had one of his bowlers banned in this manner would automatically receive the kinds of fines, and suspensions that currently exist.

    Sri Lanka are one of the worst offenders in my book. How you can need two minutes of stuffing around with the field after EVERY ball, and badly lag behind the required rate with Murali and Jayasuriya bowling is beyond me.
    Last edited by Matt79; 15-06-2006 at 06:25 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  8. #8
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    I understand what you're saying about penalising runs, in that it's an immediate sanction that people would actually care about (as opposed to 50% of money that you haven't actually received yet, still leaving you with a massive payment for five days (slack) work), but I think its too severe an alteration to the principles of the game. You wouldn't really feel like you'd won a hard fought test match if you did so because your opponents were penalised 10 runs on a count back.

    I think an alternative would be to ban slow (as in over rate) bowlers from bowling for a while, which could work in the same way that the system stands for bowlers who've been off the field to receive treatment (ie can't bowl for the set period depending how long they were off). At the end of a session, or at drinks breaks, the match referee could, through the umpire, cite specific bowlers as bowling too slowly, and if the warning wasn't heeded, they could be banned from bowling for an hour, or what have you, depending on the severity of the breach.

    The judgement calls would come in defining what is "too slow", there'd need to be some kind of sliding scale that would factor in the length of run ups etc, and events like sixes, wickets, etc that interrupt an over, but a guideline could be worked out for each bowler before a match, advised to them before a match, and then enforced. Not being able to bowl your best bowlers is an immediate penalty, but one that is more in keeping with existing sanctions for things like injury time, and running on the pitch. On top of that, any captain who had one of his bowlers banned in this manner would automatically receive the kinds of fines, and suspensions that currently exist.

    Sri Lanka are one of the worst offenders in my book. How you can need two minutes of stuffing around with the field after EVERY ball, and badly lag behind the required rate with Murali and Jayasuriya bowling is beyond me.
    Good post, and a good idea. Fining the captain on top will of course make it a personal priority of theirs to ensure bowlers bowl quickly enough. It would be a double whammy. Imagine England not being able to use Hoggard/Flintoff for an hour and Vaughan getting fined for it. There'd be angry people all round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl Rose
    The internet is a big garbage can


    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  9. #9
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,328
    I'm totally against artificially adding runs to the total. You could maybe say that 30 overs have to be bowled before lunch and you go on until they are and the lunch break is shortened accordingly, so if you end up only having a 20 minute lunch then hard luck. There would of course be a slight snag in that the batsman wouldn't get their proper rest either.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web Staff Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,755
    Every over a team is shy of their 90 overs for the scheduled day, 10% of the match fee.

    When they find that after two days their match fee has gone, no more slow over rates.
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  11. #11
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,029
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie
    Every over a team is shy of their 90 overs for the scheduled day, 10% of the match fee.

    When they find that after two days their match fee has gone, no more slow over rates.

    See, but I don't think a match fee is a good enough deterrent. I don't know about the rest of the cricket players, but match fees for Indian players are a small part of their overall $$.

    But even assuming that match fees are their sole source of income, if it means saving a test, don't you think people will slow down the over rates even if it means losing their match fees?

    It has to be runs, something that will cause them to lose the match. Otherwise, I don't think its deterrent enough.

  12. #12
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson
    I'm totally against artificially adding runs to the total. You could maybe say that 30 overs have to be bowled before lunch and you go on until they are and the lunch break is shortened accordingly, so if you end up only having a 20 minute lunch then hard luck. There would of course be a slight snag in that the batsman wouldn't get their proper rest either.

    And that wouldn't solve the problem of a team slowing down to save a test on the last day.

  13. #13
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    Every over a team is shy of their 90 overs for the scheduled day, 10% of the match fee.

    When they find that after two days their match fee has gone, no more slow over rates.
    Better yet, why not start eating into their match fees for the next match? Why stop at the money gained for the match being played?

  14. #14
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,995
    Players would be constantly owing money though TC.

    When was the last time a team completed the 90 overs within the 6 hours scheduled?

    I'd say the worst is if a spinner bowls say 25 overs in the day and they still take 6 and a half hours.

  15. #15
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,328
    For every over that is short in each hour the offending team should be forced to listen to Barry Manilow CD's for the equivalent length of time. If this doesn't cure the problem two players per team should have their hair set on fire on a rotational basis.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Bali 9 to face the death penalty
    By Craig in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 11-09-2006, 08:21 AM
  2. why declining over rates?
    By swede in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 06:04 AM
  3. Replies: 87
    Last Post: 28-02-2005, 02:53 PM
  4. Death penalty
    By cricket player in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 24-02-2005, 01:15 PM
  5. Scoring rates and their influence on victories
    By thirdslip in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12-08-2004, 06:46 AM

Posting Permissions

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