Potential changes to the laws of cricket

[PottedMustard]

Uhh, we're not against change. Give us a sensible idea and we'll consider it.

Isn't it your turn?

 

[PottedMustard]

Should we have the umpire call "steeeeeeeeeerike!" after each one too?

I think the Aussies already do that, don't they?

 

[adharcric]

Isn't it your turn?

No.

 

[PottedMustard]

No.

Okay, thanks for the useful contribution.

 

[Johnners]

If you read my above post you'd notice that i do wish to consider the possiblity of change. What your suggesting though is criminal, it's not as if the batsmen aren't aggressive enough, and if what you wish to see is a change in favour of the bowlers, i'd suggest you take a look at the pitches around the world to start with.

It's not as if the players don't have enough to concentrate on whilst out in the middle, without having to worry about how many deliveries they've left, or how many runs they've score this particular over. Not only that, you'd also risk losing those who are just casual cricket watchers for the fact that they're not understanding the game.

 

[Johnners]

Should we have the umpire call "steeeeeeeeeerike!" after each one too?

tbh i'd much rather see the batsmen having to run to bases instead of just up and down the wicket, how many runs you score is determined by how many bases you can run (eg. to make 6, you have to run the entire diamond, and the run to 2nd base again)

 

[The Sean]

Actually, to move the thread on a little - I've always had one law I wish was changed, that being when a ball is thrown in from a fieldsman, hits the stumps and then ricochets off in a different direction allowing the batsmen to take extra runs. I've always thought the ball should be declared dead when it hits the stumps, rather than punishing the fielding side by conceding more runs as the result of an accurate throw.

 

[adharcric]

tbh i'd much rather see the batsmen having to run to bases instead of just up and down the wicket, how many runs you score is determined by how many bases you can run (eg. to make 6, you have to run the entire diamond, and the run to 2nd base again)

A home run is still six runs though right? Otherwise, I'm afraid Sehwag and Inzy would retire.

 

[Johnners]

Actually, to move the thread on a little - I've always had one law I wish was changed, that being when a ball is thrown in from a fieldsman, hits the stumps and then ricochets off in a different direction allowing the batsmen to take extra runs. I've always thought the ball should be declared dead when it hits the stumps, rather than punishing the fielding side by conceding more runs as the result of an accurate throw.

have to agree with that right there, but then what do you do in the case of when the batsmen straight drives back and deflects off the bowler into the stumps? (assuming of course it hasn't run out the batsmen whom is off-strike)

 

[Johnners]

A home run is still six runs though right? Otherwise, I'm afraid Sehwag and Inzy would retire.

Nah, if you hit it over the rope & over the fence it's 8, however if you hit it over the rope & not the fence it's 6, whilst the normal rules for a 4 apply

 

[PottedMustard]

if what you wish to see is a change in favour of the bowlers, i'd suggest you take a look at the pitches around the world to start with.

Do you think my idea is any more ridiculous than having substitutes in ODIs? Hmmm...

Anyway, re. your point above, I've long been in favour of the implementation of fines for grounds which produce drawn tests, payable by the home nation's cricket body.

 

[adharcric]

Do you think my idea is any more ridiculous than having substitutes in ODIs? Hmmm...

Yes. As lame as the Super Sub rule was, your idea is far worse.

 

[PottedMustard]

Yes. As lame as the Super Sub rule was, your idea is far worse.

I do like the fact that you're unable to understand that my idea is nothing more than a rough diamond and not, as you seem to have convinced yourself, a finalised proposal.

 

[adharcric]

I do like the fact that you're unable to understand that my idea is nothing more than a rough diamond and not, as you seem to have convinced yourself, a finalised proposal.

I understand that and I'm not discouraging you from suggesting more ideas. I don't have any myself. Still, that (your idea being a "rough diamond") doesn't make your idea any less crap.

 

[PottedMustard]

I understand that and I'm not discouraging you from suggesting more ideas. I don't have any myself. Still, that (your idea being a "rough diamond") doesn't make your idea any less crap.

Right, got it, thanks for popping in.

Anyway, anyone else got any ideas. Strobe lights for day-night games?

 

[Johnners]

Do you think my idea is any more ridiculous than having substitutes in ODIs? Hmmm...

Anyway, re. your point above, I've long been in favour of the implementation of fines for grounds which produce drawn tests, payable by the home nation's cricket body.

You should take note that the ODI super-sub rule has been scrapped due to it's ridiculousness.. hardly a law change i'd be using as a precedent for further changes.

Fines for grounds that produce drawns tests is ludicrous. What happens once the players make it out into the middle is uncontrollable by the home nations cricket body. Take the 1st Test of Australia v South Africa in Perth 2005/2006. The match looked a certainty to be an Australian victory, and only a mammoth batting performance from 1 man stood between Australia and the sweet taste of success. It's hardly fair to punish the ACB for fight, and determination shown by Jaques Rudolph.

Also, another recent example of a drawn test was the 3rd Ashes Test at Old Trafford 2005. Again, it's hardly fair to punish the ECB because there was no result due to Ricky Ponting playing one of the great reargaurd innings of the Modern Era.

Furthermore, you can hardly expect the respective boards to control the weather, which is often a major factor in drawn games...

Keep trying....

 

[Johnners]

Right, got it, thanks for popping in.

Anyway, anyone else got any ideas. Strobe lights for day-night games?

In relation to lights, i'd love to see changes in relation to players going of due to bad light. I can understand that it's dangerous for batsmen with the faster men bowling during bad light, but i can't understand how it's a danger to the batsmens well-being if slow bowlers (i.e Spinners & Ashley Giles) are sending the ball down. I've heard it time and time again from past players that they think it's ridicudlous and i'd be inclined to agree with them.

 

[PottedMustard]

You should take note that the ODI super-sub rule has been scrapped due to it's ridiculousness..

Fair dinkum??? jeez, you know your stuff, dontcha!

 

[PottedMustard]

You should take note that the ODI super-sub rule has been scrapped due to it's ridiculousness.. hardly a law change i'd be using as a precedent for further changes.

Fines for grounds that produce drawns tests is ludicrous. What happens once the players make it out into the middle is uncontrollable by the home nations cricket body. Take the 1st Test of Australia v South Africa in Perth 2005/2006. The match looked a certainty to be an Australian victory, and only a mammoth batting performance from 1 man stood between Australia and the sweet taste of success. It's hardly fair to punish the ACB for fight, and determination shown by Jaques Rudolph.

Also, another recent example of a drawn test was the 3rd Ashes Test at Old Trafford 2005. Again, it's hardly fair to punish the ECB because there was no result due to Ricky Ponting playing one of the great reargaurd innings of the Modern Era.

Furthermore, you can hardly expect the respective boards to control the weather, which is often a major factor in drawn games...

Keep trying....

My mistake for not stating the obvious! If the test is affected by the weather, then there should OBVIOUSLY be no fine. Hard work...

 

[Johnners]

My mistake for not stating the obvious! If the test is affected by the weather, then there should OBVIOUSLY be no fine. Hard work...

So then you'd still be up for punishing the respective cricket boards because of drawns caused by phenominal performances by players from either team??? In effect you'd be handing out punishment for outstanding cricket performances. If you ask me, sometimes a draw is a fitting end to a test match where both teams have played incredibly well, yet at the end of the day cannot be seperated.

Would i be correct in saying that your main argument is that if say the pitch provided is an absolute road, and doens't provide a result, thats when the punishment should be handed out?

Also, it could be detrimental to the sport as it opens the game even more to match fixing imo. As much as i'd like to beleive it wouldn't happen, you couldn't help but think that the better off cricketing boards might attempt to approach players and pretty much get them to force a result through bad bowling, throwing away their wickets, or in a captains case setting poor fields.