Reintroduction of the Substitute rule

aussie · 24-06-2009, 11:55 AM

Given how T20s have evolved i think having this rule back again, would make the format even more appealing.

As most would remember the way ICC structured the rule the last time, where by the captain had to name his sub before the toss instead of after the toss, really was stupid. I was always a fan of it & i believe it should come back.

Opinions??

superkingdave · 24-06-2009, 11:57 AM

No thanks, not a fan.

BoyBrumby · 24-06-2009, 12:33 PM

With dav, tried it and was wholly unsatisfying.

Part of the joy of cricket is balancing a team, IMHO.

Richard · 24-06-2009, 01:27 PM

Would go well enough in Twenty20 I guess (I obviously don't care either way) and could possibly have been useful in ODIs, but I'm happy enough it's been abandoned, as it didn't really add much.

GIMH · 24-06-2009, 01:46 PM

It was an epic fail. I'd agree that it could have been used better but would not like to see it again.

andruid · 24-06-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussie

Given how T20s have evolved i think having this rule back again, would make the format even more appealing.

As most would remember the way ICC structured the rule the last time, where by the captain had to name his sub before the toss instead of after the toss, really was stupid. I was always a fan of it & i believe it should come back.

Opinions??

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

It was an epic fail. I'd agree that it could have been used better but would not like to see it again.

It was as an epic fail cos they tried to force it in where it was almost completely inconsequential. Perhaps if they could implement it for injuries. Perhaps if a player is injured before he takes to the crease to bat or to bowl in a way that rules him out, there could be a case to get a replacement.(e.g if a batsmen turn ankle, or didlocates a shoulder when the team is fielding first they can have an option of bringing in a replacement batsman rather than chase wityh only 10 fit men)

BoyBrumby · 24-06-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andruid

It was as an epic fail cos they tried to force it in where it was almost completely inconsequential. Perhaps if they could implement it for injuries. Perhaps if a player is injured before he takes to the crease to bat or to bowl in a way that rules him out, there could be a case to get a replacement.(e.g if a batsmen turn ankle, or didlocates a shoulder when the team is fielding first they can have an option of bringing in a replacement batsman rather than chase wityh only 10 fit men)

Would be abused IMHO.

GIMH · 24-06-2009, 03:10 PM

Nah, nobody's ever abused the substitute fielder rule so I don't see why this would be any different

BoyBrumby · 24-06-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Nah, nobody's ever abused the substitute fielder rule so I don't see why this would be any different

Fair point and anyone who suggests otherwise is a mint-obsessed Aussie, clearly.

Scaly piscine · 24-06-2009, 03:29 PM

Unlike the general impression seem to have T20 has very few innovations as far as rules etc. go. It is basically just an old style ODI (ie when it had 15 powerplay overs) cut down to proportionally to a 20 over per side. The only difference I can think of is the free hit.

ODIs these days have far more gimmicks and complicated rules. You've got the regular power play at the start, then you have another two power play chosen by each side with slightly different fielding restrictions to the first power play. You've got the ball being replaced at 35 overs. You've got a more exaggerated day/night element. Still have the free hit. And of course on top of that the rules change on a regular basis.

superkingdave · 24-06-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Nah, nobody's ever abused the substitute fielder rule so I don't see why this would be any different

that used to be the case but IIRC in the first test of the 06/07 Ashes, the Aussies CATSOTG(completely against the spirit of the game) decided to employ Ryan Broad when the could feel the game slipping away from them as Strauss settled in for a triple at the start of England's second innings when they only needed a paltry 648 to win.

Jungle Jumbo · 24-06-2009, 03:49 PM

No, no way. Tried and failed. Cricket is an eleven-a-side sport; it was often rendered redundant by the toss; it confused an already confusing form of the game, without adding anything of any substance to it.

Also with Scaly here, I don't think I could explain the basic playing conditions of ODIs ATM, so what chance has the average punter in the ground got?

Howsie · 24-06-2009, 06:43 PM

I was never a fan of it, and I don't feel as though the ICC used it well enough. We don't need our sport slowly turning into baseball.

Goughy · 24-06-2009, 09:34 PM

Pass

In its own way T20 is a pure and simple game.

GIMH · 25-06-2009, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superkingdave

that used to be the case but IIRC in the first test of the 06/07 Ashes, the Aussies CATSOTG(completely against the spirit of the game) decided to employ Ryan Broad when the could feel the game slipping away from them as Strauss settled in for a triple at the start of England's second innings when they only needed a paltry 648 to win.

Fair point, that's the reason I don't acknowledge the series at all tbh

24-06-2009, 11:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
aussie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Cricket Posts: 16,845	Reintroduction of the Substitute rule Given how T20s have evolved i think having this rule back again, would make the format even more appealing. As most would remember the way ICC structured the rule the last time, where by the captain had to name his sub before the toss instead of after the toss, really was stupid. I was always a fan of it & i believe it should come back. Opinions??

24-06-2009, 11:57 AM	#2 (permalink)
superkingdave Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Inflection Points - 2 Posts: 18,292	No thanks, not a fan. __________________ Dave Mohammed >>>> You ▲

24-06-2009, 12:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,636	With dav, tried it and was wholly unsatisfying. Part of the joy of cricket is balancing a team, IMHO. __________________ *- As featured in The Independent.* "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads

24-06-2009, 03:29 PM	#10 (permalink)
Scaly piscine Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: North East England Posts: 18,529	Unlike the general impression seem to have T20 has very few innovations as far as rules etc. go. It is basically just an old style ODI (ie when it had 15 powerplay overs) cut down to proportionally to a 20 over per side. The only difference I can think of is the free hit. ODIs these days have far more gimmicks and complicated rules. You've got the regular power play at the start, then you have another two power play chosen by each side with slightly different fielding restrictions to the first power play. You've got the ball being replaced at 35 overs. You've got a more exaggerated day/night element. Still have the free hit. And of course on top of that the rules change on a regular basis. __________________ National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th in 2009 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion 24 Hour Scrabble World Record Attempt for Charity, in aid of Daisy Chain and End Polio Now Countdown Series 57 Champion King of the Arcade Reply from mods to my prank bans in public: Reply from mods to my prank bans in private: MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

24-06-2009, 09:34 PM	#14 (permalink)
Goughy International Coach Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: All Over Posts: 14,638	Pass In its own way T20 is a pure and simple game. __________________ If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads) Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

24-06-2009, 01:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,617	It was an epic fail. I'd agree that it could have been used better but would not like to see it again.

24-06-2009, 03:10 PM	#8 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,617	Nah, nobody's ever abused the substitute fielder rule so I don't see why this would be any different

24-06-2009, 03:49 PM	#12 (permalink)
Jungle Jumbo International Vice-Captain Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: England Posts: 4,898	No, no way. Tried and failed. Cricket is an eleven-a-side sport; it was often rendered redundant by the toss; it confused an already confusing form of the game, without adding anything of any substance to it. Also with Scaly here, I don't think I could explain the basic playing conditions of ODIs ATM, so what chance has the average punter in the ground got?

24-06-2009, 06:43 PM	#13 (permalink)
Howsie International Vice-Captain Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NZ Posts: 4,535	I was never a fan of it, and I don't feel as though the ICC used it well enough. We don't need our sport slowly turning into baseball.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The first rule of _______ club is....	Paid The Umpire	Off Topic	31	23-11-2008 08:39 PM
Rule Query - input appreciated	Muld	Cricket Chat	8	19-05-2007 10:15 AM
Solution for rain rule	Pratters	Cricket Chat	26	25-01-2004 05:44 PM
Substitute fielder	Arjun	Cricket Chat	13	11-01-2004 09:14 AM