ICC announce ODI law changes

[Pup Clarke]

I know but he probably would've sensed a question like this, and his CW senses would've triggered leading him to sign on.

 

[Richard]

I know but he probably would've sensed a question like this, and his CW senses would've triggered leading him to sign on.

Plus it's only a matter of time he comes on .

 

[Richard]

Before Richard answers...

Andmark - Mark
CDM - John (I think... I am not a 100 percent on that)

That's right, BTW - andmark is, amazingly, Mark; cdm is John.

IIRR Mark Newton and John Newton, but even I'm not sure about that.

 

[open365]

While the free hit rule favours the batsman incredibly, hopefully it leads to the bowlers starting to realise that they can't get away with no balls all the time. Morne Morkel and Dilhara Fernando are in trouble.

I think incredibly is a bit of a strong word, i know that in itself this rule does not really favour bowlers at all, but i wouldn't really say it massively helps batsmen either as the free hit almost always gets toed to long on and the captain is allowed to change his field.

I've never really seen what people have against no balls tbh.

 

[Richard]

Well... for starters it instantly gives away 1 (sometimes 2) runs for nothing... for 2nd it gives an extra delivery for the batsman to score off at the end of the over... for 3rd it sometimes (if the call's early and the batsman's reaction is good) gives a free-hit that ball.

And with the new free-hit-next-ball introduction, that's something worse than anything yet.

And I hope it might just encourage bowlers and bowling-coaches to take don't-bowl-no-balls a teeny incy bit more seriously. There's never any excuse for it ITFP, and now there's more than no excuse for it.

 

[silentstriker]

Well... for starters it instantly gives away 1 (sometimes 2) runs for nothing... for 2nd it gives an extra delivery for the batsman to score off at the end of the over... for 3rd it sometimes (if the call's early and the batsman's reaction is good) gives a free-hit that ball.

Thats punishment enough IMO for a no ball. Extra ball seems excessive punishment.

Also, what if the free hit ball is also a no ball? Does he get two more or just one more?

 

[open365]

Well... for starters it instantly gives away 1 (sometimes 2) runs for nothing... for 2nd it gives an extra delivery for the batsman to score off at the end of the over... for 3rd it sometimes (if the call's early and the batsman's reaction is good) gives a free-hit that ball.

And with the new free-hit-next-ball introduction, that's something worse than anything yet.

And I hope it might just encourage bowlers and bowling-coaches to take don't-bowl-no-balls a teeny incy bit more seriously. There's never any excuse for it ITFP, and now there's more than no excuse for it.

Not sure i agree with the extra delivery bit that much, in a ODI game maybe there's 6 no balls by one side and 8 by the other, that changes it from 300V300(deliverise per side) to 306V308, any difference the no balls make in that regard don't really change the outcome of the match.

And there is an excuse for it, i think the fact that it happens shows that no balls are as much a part of the game as dropped catches and run outs, sure excessive no balling is something that should be worked at but giving away 1-2 no balls per 10 over spell imo is fine.

 

[cover drive man]

No ball rule = Not bad but they dont have to add a run on as well.

35 over ball change = Good for swing.

Fielding law = Meh.

 

[Beleg]

What ****ing awful rule changes.

 

[Richard]

Thats punishment enough IMO for a no ball. Extra ball seems excessive punishment.

What you forget is that punishment is not solely punishment - it also acts as disincentive. You know - the consequences if you were to put a bullet through someone's head I'd imagine discourage you from doing so?

I'm hopeful that the more punishment for no-balls, the less we're going to see them.

Also, what if the free hit ball is also a no ball? Does he get two more or just one more?

If the free-hit's a no-ball (or a wide) you get another one next ball. Simple as.

 

[open365]

I'm hopeful that the more punishment for no-balls, the less we're going to see them.

Why do you care about watching them>??????

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm hopeful that the more punishment for no-balls, the less we're going to see them.

Which is why they've introduced them, in theory. However, I highly doubt it will work - the deterrent already exists. The no-ball exploits we're seeing are from bowlers who genuinely struggle with them IMO, not those who can't be bothered to fix them up. All we'll see now is otherwise-good bowlers becoming substandard due to harsher penalties for their no-balls, and dire replacements come up who would otherwise be worse than those dropped.

 

[silentstriker]

Family forum Beleg.

 

[Richard]

Not sure i agree with the extra delivery bit that much, in a ODI game maybe there's 6 no balls by one side and 8 by the other, that changes it from 300V300(deliverise per side) to 306V308, any difference the no balls make in that regard don't really change the outcome of the match.

You're kidding, aren't you? That's fourteen extra deliveries!!!!!!!!!!!! Heaven knows how many runs can be scored off those - and that's before we even consider the 14 extra runs, plus anything you get for hearing the call early and having a swat.

It could quite easily add another 50 runs to the match total. 250-plays-250; 275-plays-275; there's a huge difference.

I think some people seriously underrate the effect no-balls can have on a limited-overs game.

And there is an excuse for it, i think the fact that it happens shows that no balls are as much a part of the game as dropped catches and run outs, sure excessive no balling is something that should be worked at but giving away 1-2 no balls per 10 over spell imo is fine.

Why give them away when you can not give them away? Just a couple of no-balls per 10 overs can quite easily cost you 10 runs - that changes a good 10-37-1 into a poor 10-47-1.

There's no excuse for getting anywhere near the popping-crease, especially for a spinner - you gain absolutely nothing by doing so, when you propel the ball at 50mph and more the difference in reaction time for an extra 20cm or so is virtually nothing.

 

[silentstriker]

What you forget is that punishment is not solely punishment - it also acts as disincentive. You know - the consequences if you were to put a bullet through someone's head I'd imagine discourage you from doing so?

I'm hopeful that the more punishment for no-balls, the less we're going to see them.

Why not just award the game to the other side if someone bowls one? Again, the punishment should fit the crime. No-balling is a bad thing, and is thus punished. The free hit is ridiculous. Do batsmen get punished in their next innings if they get out to a bad shot?

 

[Richard]

Family forum Beleg.

Think that's the first I've seen you dishing the discipline, Manan.

 

[Richard]

Why not just award the game to the other side if someone bowls one? Again, the punishment should fit the crime. No-balling is a bad thing, and is thus punished. The free hit is ridiculous. Do batsmen get punished in their next innings if they get out to a bad shot?

The more the punishment, the more the disincentive. I'm happy for it to go this far, you're not - simple as.

 

[Richard]

Why do you care about watching them>??????

It's just pure indiscipline IMO - whether ingrown or just slackness. And I hate it like I hate virtually nothing in cricket, except dropped catches.

 

[sohummisra]

It's just pure indiscipline IMO - whether ingrown or just slackness. And I hate it like I hate virtually nothing in cricket, except dropped catches.

I like dropped catches when India is batting.

 

[Richard]

Which is why they've introduced them, in theory. However, I highly doubt it will work - the deterrent already exists. The no-ball exploits we're seeing are from bowlers who genuinely struggle with them IMO, not those who can't be bothered to fix them up. All we'll see now is otherwise-good bowlers becoming substandard due to harsher penalties for their no-balls, and dire replacements come up who would otherwise be worse than those dropped.

I don't know about either of those, TBH. I honestly don't think most people regard the bowling of no-balls (as long as it's not excessive, to the tune of one every other over or so) as a problem. You hear all the time about bowlers doing it every single time in practice, you see spinners bowling them sometimes... enough, IMO, to suggest it's not taken seriously enough for the current punishment to be any real deterrant. This might just be the shot in the arm that requires it to be.

And I also don't know how many bowlers who have "problems" are actually not fixing them due to laze, TBH. Dilhara Fernando, for instance, said he'd found a simple way to fix the problem a year or so ago... after 7 years or so of it being a problem. It instantly became apparent that said method wasn't any use after all.

You rarely hear about people working on bowlers' run-ups to get the front-foot back; you virtually never hear about coaches chastising bowlers (especially spinners) for bowling no-balls. Me, if I was a coach and someone with a 5-pace run-up bowled a no-ball I'd make him do 50 laps - no exaggeration.

The problem will only go away if it's taken with proper seriousness.