ODI rule changes

[Richard]

And 255 isn't a large enough total for a team to defend in the field if their up against a good batting lineup. Don't understand what your trying to get at, unless you're saying that 255 is a huge total, which it definitely isn't.

If you've a good bowling-attack, you can defend 255 any time.

 

[marc71178]

So if a catch is taken inside the boundary and the player then runs across the rope on his way to the dressing room, he's not in control of the ball?

If the catch is completed the ball is dead.

If the player cannot stop themselves going over the rope whilst fielding it, then they are not in control of it at that point.

Completely different scenarios.

 

[Jono]

I like the idea of the fielding team in ODIs getting a brand new white ball after around 25 or 30 overs. Would be interesting to see how that went.

 

[adharcric]

To hell with spinners?

 

[Jono]

Alright, 40 overs then

I just think it'd be interesting to see how teams that are say 3/235 and cruising by the time the 40th over comes around will handle going the tonk with the new ball. Imagine say McGrath and Bracken have bowled 6 each by the 40th over, with Brad Hogg already bowling his 10. If Bracken got one to swing a bit and remove one of the set batsman, suddenly 4/245 with a new white pill may result in slips being put in place during the last 10 overs! That'd be something.

 

[Fiery]

2 rules that annoy me are:

1) 5 runs for a boundary wide. Isn't 4 runs and an extra ball punishment enough? Why make it 5?

2)Being able to get extra runs if a fielder throws and hits the stumps and the ball richochets away for runs. Stupid to punish the fielding side for a good piece of cricket.

 

[pasag]

2 rules that annoy me are:

1) 5 runs for a boundary wide. Isn't 4 runs and an extra ball punishment enough? Why make it 5?

2)Being able to get extra runs if a fielder throws and hits the stumps and the ball richochets away for runs. Stupid to punish the fielding side for a good piece of cricket.

Agreed

 

[vic_orthdox]

If a second new ball was brought in at 40 overs, wouldn't be surprised if it, at times, actually increased the amount of runs scored in the last 10 overs.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hmm, depends really. I guess if the ball gets hard, then people who like to hit sixes and hit the ball hard would find it easier, but it would also swing, seam and bounce more.......

 

[nexxus]

To hell with spinners?

I believe I speak for most SAffers when I say, yes. To hell with spinners. A fie on the lot of 'em. A blight to the game they arrr!

 

[Mahindinho]

If this has been brought up before, I apologise for not having read the whole thead but my choices relate to the boundary rope
...

Exactly what I was saying - if you're playing on a big ground, then bloody well use it. I hate seeing edges going for four, or even six.

 

[Jono]

If a second new ball was brought in at 40 overs, wouldn't be surprised if it, at times, actually increased the amount of runs scored in the last 10 overs.

That's a fair call, but the powerplays wouldn't be on.

Instead of the batsman just getting a harder ball to hit (with the regular ball changes), however one that doesn't swing, they'd get a harder ball with shine on it which will swing.

Totally understand your point though. Just throwing ideas around really.

 

[Richard]

2 rules that annoy me are:

1) 5 runs for a boundary wide. Isn't 4 runs and an extra ball punishment enough? Why make it 5?

Because - rightly IMO, after 200 years or so of nonsense - a wide (and no-ball) counts for 1 run plus anything scored. If you had a wide only counting if the ball was a dot-ball it'd defy the point of running a single on a wide.

And you can't have it two ways.

IMO the rule's right - even if it took 200 years to get it so.

2)Being able to get extra runs if a fielder throws and hits the stumps and the ball richochets away for runs. Stupid to punish the fielding side for a good piece of cricket.

Agreed

I thought that about 1,000,000 times, but I then heard Mikey Holding comment on the matter a few months back and point-out that many teams simply throw the ball at the stumps utterly pointlessly. And as such, why shouldn't they be punished when it ricochets away from the fielders?

I guess there's no easy way to do it, because you couldn't have it both ways (no-one can say unequivocally "that was a needless shie"). The best method I guess would be to do a Duckworth\Lewis style survey and see whether pointless-shies outnumbered pointful-shies. And change or not change the rule accordingly.

 

[irfan]

On the back of Kasprowicz suggesting that batsman should take off one bit of protective gear (of the bowler's choice) every time they swing and miss, I have a slightly more practical proposal.

What if.... a batsman swings (blatant) and misses as opposed to plays and misses then the bowler has to bowl one less ball in the over. So, essentially, the next ball is a dot ball.

If the ball happens to be the last ball of the over, then in his next over he has to bowl only 5 legal deliveries in his next over. However, if the batsman swings and misses on the final ball of a bowler's spell then this rule would be considered void.

Increasingly, ODI cricket is becoming more about the runs and balls equation rather than wickets in hand, as more teams bat deeper than ever before. So reducing the number of deliveries makes the batsman more selective in his shot-making process instead of try to needlessly trying to slog everything. If the batsman makes contact, good and well, but if he doesn't he should be docked a ball.

However, if a batsman plays a defensive shot and misses then there should be no penalty. It shall be up to the umpires to adjucate whether the batsman swings and misses or plays and misses.

Thougts ??

 

[Richard]

On the back of Kasprowicz suggesting that batsman should take off one bit of protective gear (of the bowler's choice) every time they swing and miss

He seriously suggested that?

 

[irfan]

Yep it's in the Cricinfo Quotes section - I think he was a tad sarcastic btw

 

[Richard]

Well I'd kinda hope so...

 

[irfan]

Anyway, Richard what's you're thoughts on my proposal

 

[Richard]

IAH, I think you can innovate too much. I think the Supersub idea was certainly an example of such, and messing around with the number of balls per over is not something I'd be in favour of.

Some sort of way to discourage bowlers from EVER bowling no-balls, however, is.

 

[Dick Rockett]

What if.... a batsman swings (blatant) and misses as opposed to plays and misses then the bowler has to bowl one less ball in the over. So, essentially, the next ball is a dot ball.

If the ball happens to be the last ball of the over, then in his next over he has to bowl only 5 legal deliveries in his next over. However, if the batsman swings and misses on the final ball of a bowler's spell then this rule would be considered void.

Increasingly, ODI cricket is becoming more about the runs and balls equation rather than wickets in hand, as more teams bat deeper than ever before. So reducing the number of deliveries makes the batsman more selective in his shot-making process instead of try to needlessly trying to slog everything. If the batsman makes contact, good and well, but if he doesn't he should be docked a ball.

However, if a batsman plays a defensive shot and misses then there should be no penalty. It shall be up to the umpires to adjucate whether the batsman swings and misses or plays and misses.

Thougts ??

Ummm... no. Sorry to dismiss your idea like that, but no.