Runner

[Pratters]

Should he be allowed?

 

[Shri]

I am sure Ian Healy would approve.

 

[Pratters]

Should never be allowed IMO. If you can't run, you shouldn't be batting.

 

[Shri]

Should never be allowed IMO. If you can't run, you shouldn't be batting.

If you are strong-willed and brave enough to compete even after sustaining an injury, you have earned a runner afaic.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The main problem with runners is when the injured batsman is on strike and the runner is running from about 30 yards away leaving the umpire without a cat in hells chance of judging a close Run Out at speed.

 

[Shri]

The main problem with runners is when the injured batsman is on strike and the runner is running from about 30 yards away leaving the umpire without a cat in hells chance of judging a close Run Out at speed.

It would have been a real pain in the ass for the umpires before the TV replays came into play. But, since cricket is not a physical contact sport, I think runners should be allowed when batsmen are injured. But seeking runners for minor niggles should be strongly discouraged.

 

[The Sean]

The main problem with runners is when the injured batsman is on strike and the runner is running from about 30 yards away leaving the umpire without a cat in hells chance of judging a close Run Out at speed.

This is true and would have been a fair enough argument ten years ago, but when was the last time an umpire actually judged a runout without sending it upstairs?

 

[Fusion]

should never be allowed imo. If you can't run, you shouldn't be batting.

This.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is true and would have been a fair enough argument ten years ago, but when was the last time an umpire actually judged a runout without sending it upstairs?

I assumed it was a more general question than just about important matches with loads of cameras and a third umpire.

 

[Goughy]

I dont mind it either way. TBH, thinking about it I like the current rule.

I dont want people making injuries worse and genuinely hurting themselves because they are trying to run when damaged.

I can understand people saying that they can hit 4s and 6s and deal with it, but you will have people with broken legs trying to run 3s. Ego and helping the team will cause damage.

 

[Fusion]

I dont mind it either way. TBH, thinking about it I like the current rule.

I dont want people making injuries worse and genuinely hurting themselves because they are trying to run when damaged.

I can understand people saying that they can hit 4s and 6s and deal with it, but you will have people with broken legs trying to run 3s. Ego and helping the team will cause damage.

That applies to other aspects of the game too though. A bowler with a bad back may keep bowling just to help the team for example. In my opinion if an injury is serious enough to prevent a player from performing an essential function, they should either retire hurt or keep playing with the limitation if they want to. Providing a runner has never seemed right to me.

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't think the 12th man should be allowed to field, so I certainly don't think runners should be allowed.

 

[Nate]

A very strong 'no' from me.

Will change to a yes if fielders can piggyback bowlers from their mark to the crease, mind.

 

[James]

I don't think the 12th man should be allowed to field, so I certainly don't think runners should be allowed.

Agree with this, if a player gets injuried on Day 1 of a Test for example, you're then down to 10 fielders the rest of the game. No more of this subing fielders on and off.

Agree with no runners too.

 

[Top_Cat]

That applies to other aspects of the game too though. A bowler with a bad back may keep bowling just to help the team for example. In my opinion if an injury is serious enough to prevent a player from performing an essential function, they should either retire hurt or keep playing with the limitation if they want to. Providing a runner has never seemed right to me.

Not exactly analogous to bowling. A runner doesn't bat for the batter and if a batter has an injury serious enough to prevent him batting, they generally do go off.

It may not be entirely free from controversy but it's swings and roundabouts. Sure bowlers can't have a runner if they get injured but the discrepancy is cured by the fact that a batter could call for a runner and get out next ball whereas providing the equivalent of a runner for a bowler (if it was just their legs injured) would mean they could keep bowling all day. And although I'm sure people would be able to come up with examples of where a batter batted on one leg and saved the day, there's a heap more examples where a batter called for a runner and was out soon after. It's such a rare occurance that I fail to see the merit in legislating against it, too overly-officious for mine.

 

[thierry henry]

This is true and would have been a fair enough argument ten years ago, but when was the last time an umpire actually judged a runout without sending it upstairs?

Sorry to be pedantic, but the 3rd umpire has actually been around in international cricket for over 16 years now

 

[Precambrian]

If you are strong-willed and brave enough to compete even after sustaining an injury, you have earned a runner afaic.

Hmm... whose dupli is this? AFAIC?

BTW, I would say no runner, because batting is not a job where an injury can be specific only to hindering one's running abilites but not one's striking ability.

 

[Precambrian]

This is true and would have been a fair enough argument ten years ago, but when was the last time an umpire actually judged a runout without sending it upstairs?

Today morning. Sehwag.

 

[Jamee999]

Only if the batter is injured in the course of the innings.

 

[Craig]

If a batsman goes into a game injured then tough luck, no runner, but if he gets injured then yes for mine.