ODI Rule Changes

[James]

ODI rule changes could come in early

ODI rule changes could come in early

 

[Days of Grace]

Am very thankful they changed the rule to the ball will be changed at 35 overs. Was a needless disturbance before.

And the rule about the boundary length sounds good too.

 

[Richard]

I often wish there'd be some sort of regulation stating the boundary must be as long as the ground size allows it to be, TBH.

Like the front-foot-no-ball-free-hit thing, as I've said before, and I hope it'll mean that no-balls virtually cease to become a part of cricket, especially from spinners, whom it's always driven me mad that they ever bowl a single no-ball.

Obviously the bits about relaxing Powerplays is good too.

The ball-change thing would be so much better if it was just possible to design a ball that lasted longer, really. I hope it will be eventually.

Even though they're relatively small steps, it's encouraging to see the odd rule-change that favours slowing, rather than speeding-up, scoring-rates.

 

[Perm]

I like the front-foot no-ball rule, good idea, it's been succesful in Twenty20 and should hopefully eliminate no-balls from cricket.

Also, I though the rule regarded an innings being reduced and therefore affecting the Powerplays was already in place? I swear I've seen innings being reduced to 40 overs and thus, the powerplays have also been reduced.

 

[Nishant]

I like the front-foot no-ball rule, good idea, it's been succesful in Twenty20 and should hopefully eliminate no-balls from cricket.

Also, I though the rule regarded an innings being reduced and therefore affecting the Powerplays was already in place? I swear I've seen innings being reduced to 40 overs and thus, the powerplays have also been reduced.

yh...same here..i thought that rule was already in place.

 

[Goughy]

Yawn, to people like me (those that dislike ODI cricket) this again shows what a tired and dated concept ODI cricket is.

There is a constant faffing with the rules to keep trying to put a Band Aid over a broken format.

This constant revision of rules and playing conditions, with hardly a couple of years going by without the need for intervention, indicates something is seriously wrong with OD cricket.

They are constantly tring to put thing right by making changes and will never succeed.

 

[Matt79]

What's wrong with ODIs is that there's about twice as many of them as there should be. If we reduced the number of ODIs, and put in a system that meant that games were actually tied to something meaningful, that would solve most of the problems with the format.

The reason people are starting to find ODIs boring if both teams aren't scoring 400+ is that they're games over nothing. Who actually cares who wins, for more than an hour after the match. And its repeated over and over and over and over ad nauseum. Who needs 7 ODIs as part of a test tour. Who needs 7 ODIs without even the fig leaf of a Test tour. Who needs two different ODI series per summer, as per England in 2005 and Australia/NZ with the VB series and Chappell/Hadlee (although ironically enough the Chappell/Hadlee is the direction I'd like to see ODIs go - short, 3 matches, over a trophy that the two teams care about (well, at least NZ does), and relatively fixed so it has a chance to grow. The only problem with it is that it always comes hot on the heals of a 20 match triangular tournament in Australia)

 

[Richard]

I agree with most of that, but I don't like 3-match ODI series and never have.

I've long said a World Cup should be played every 2 years, but hopefully we don't need that if we can get a good Champions Trophy (the last one was easily the best) which is played every 4 years (not in World Cup seasons ). The Chappell-Hadlee is a good idea too. And I always prefer a triangular to a bilateral - if there's a final, that just adds something a little more. Sadly the concept was hit by a succession of different misfortune in this country and never really worked so much as once. It remains a viable concept in Australia and seems, inexplicably, to have been abandoned in South Africa after a couple of highly successful prototypes.

The problem is the constant offshore and often needlessly-often-repeated (do India and Pakistan really need to play every two years, never mind every one?) tournaments.

Also, it should be noted that several recent rule-changes are simply revoking bad ideas from the past, and going somewhere back toward to the successful format of the early 1990s. Now if we could just reduce the overcrowding of the fixture-list back to how it was in the 1980s, that'd complete the cycle.

 

[Goughy]

We had 3 game series in England in the 1990s and still noone cared.

The results were irrelevant. England often did very well but noone ever remembered the results as the Tests were key.

Disliking OD cricket isnt something new. The need to have all these changes on an almost annual basis just makes it even more annoying.

 

[Matt79]

The triangular series is going to be rejigged here - noone cares about matches not featuring Australia (well, at least not in the numbers CA and channel 9 want), and the whole thing drags on too long. I think there was discussion of having two separate series of 5 games a piece or something.

I've gone off triangular series - I'd rather any ODI outside of the CT or WC between two nations to be for the one perpetual trophy between those two countries (ie the equivalent of the Ashes, the Border-Gavaskar or Frank Worrell trophy for Australia and England, India, and West Indies respectively), regardless of where they are played, or who the naming sponsor is. Over time, especially if the games aren't quite as regular as they currently are, the Chappell/Hadlee, Mick Lewis Memorial (for Aust-SA) and "What do we do with a drunken Symo" trophy (Aust-Bang) could come to mean as much as the Test equivalents to players and fans, and thus the interest in ODIs is reinvigorated.

 

[bond21]

ODIs are sort of like Mark Nicholas.

They're there.....but noone really cares.

The free hit is a stupid idea aswell.

Hey, cricket is already a batsman's paradise, even more so in ODIs, lets give them a free hit if the bowler bowls a no ball. What? batsman's paradise? Oh you mean the 2 bouncer limit, a wide if the ball drifts down leg side slightly, the fielding restrictions, benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman and now let's throw in a free hit when the bowler balls a no ball.

Is the ICC full of batsman voting or what?

 

[Matt79]

Agree re a batsman's paradise. However, the front-foot-no-ball rule will probably just mean bowlers won't bowl no-balls. It seems to have worked in other formats where it was trialled.

 

[slugger]

if you want to make it a level playing field between bat and ball .. all they need to do is allow the fielding capt a couple of chances to ask for tv umpire to reconsider decession.

 

[pup11]

3 new rules have been introduced into Odi cricket from which were in effect from yesterday's game, they are :-
1. A foot-fault no-ball would be a free-hit in Odi cricket now.
2. A mandatory ball change would take place after the 35th over of the innings for both the teams.
3. One extra fielder would be allowed outside the circle in the 2nd and 3rd power-play.
Now i don't mind the free-hit and extra fielder rule but the ball change after 35th over is just a pathetic rule, it completly takes out reverse swing out of Odi cricket and it makes life even more harder for fast bowlers in the death overs.
What is your take on this, are you guys happy with these new set of rules?

 

[Perm]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28799

 

[Matt79]

3 new rules have been introduced into Odi cricket from which were in effect from yesterday's game, they are :-
1. A foot-fault no-ball would be a free-hit in Odi cricket now.
2. A mandatory ball change would take place after the 35th over of the innings for both the teams.
3. One extra fielder would be allowed outside the circle in the 2nd and 3rd power-play.
Now i don't mind the free-hit and extra fielder rule but the ball change after 35th over is just a pathetic rule, it completly takes out reverse swing out of Odi cricket and it makes life even more harder for fast bowlers in the death overs.
What is your take on this, are you guys happy with these new set of rules?

They've always changed the ball around then as it becomes too discoloured for the batsman to be able to see. All that has changed is that previously you'd see the batsman having to ask the umpires, and then a five minute hold up while the umpires conferred and decided, yes the ball is now brown rather than white, and then chose a replacement. They've just set a time in each innings when it will happen. Easily the most sensible of all of the rule changes.

Don't mind the free hit rule either.

 

[Prince EWS]

They've always changed the ball around then as it becomes too discoloured for the batsman to be able to see. All that has changed is that previously you'd see the batsman having to ask the umpires, and then a five minute hold up while the umpires conferred and decided, yes the ball is now brown rather than white, and then chose a replacement. They've just set a time in each innings when it will happen. Easily the most sensible of all of the rule changes.

Don't mind the free hit rule either.

The reason they gave for doing such was really dire though. They spoke of reverse swing as if it was a blight on the game that prevented batsmen hitting every ball for 6 in the last 5 overs and had to be nullified at all costs. I hate the fact that the ball gets changed. If it's dirty; deal with it. Next we'll be starting with a ball 20 overs old to combat the swing and seam movement the new ball gets.

 

[Matt79]

Didn't see the comment re: negating reverse swing. I had understood it was a purely visibility issue. That is dire if that is really the rationale.

 

[Julian87]

Free Hit is dumb at international level, as is an extra player outside the circle.

The stupidity of free hits is exemplified by them not applying to beamers.

 

[Athlai]

Free Hit is dumb at international level, as is an extra player outside the circle.

The stupidity of free hits is exemplified by them not applying to beamers.

The point is not to see any no balls. Now not only do they pay the price of a an extra run and delivery, but potentially even more runs.

We should see much less no balls.

The beamer things a bit silly mind.