Batting with a runner

[GotSpin]

Think it is an ok rule, tbh... Maybe stricter enforcement yes.. But you gotta give these guys some slack.. So much heat out there in some places when you play and it could take a toll.. And Sehwag seems genuinely in trouble.. Notice how little he bowled.. I am sure Dhoni would have used him more if he could.. He used freakin' Raina and Sachin..

If you have heat stroke you should be forced to retire hurt. It's part of the game.

You should only get a runner if you do a more permanent injury. Things like cramps and heat stroke can be dealt with in the short term.

 

[Jono]

More to the point, you should retire hurt, and come back when you're better.

 

[Uppercut]

It does kinda suck but there's so many run outs with a runner out there that it's really not worth a side's trouble trying to abuse the rule in tests.

In ODIs it should definitely be tightened up. You can have a situation late in an ODI where, say, Suresh Raina is running for Sourav Ganguly, which is just an absurd advantage to gain from a supposed injury. It's only a matter of time before something like that happens and kicks up a storm.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah, I remember one Yuvraj innings against England with a runner when he was hit on the body by a short ball but they got a run from it because the runner could run straight away.

Also remember the stick Strauss got last year for refusing Fat Gray a runner.

 

[Jono]

Was the right move by Strauss, but it shouldn't be at the captain's discretion. Should be a hard and fast rule. Ideally no runner, but otherwise at the umpire's discretion, depending whether they believe in good faith that there is a legitimate injury, and it occurred during the match.

 

[Cevno]

More to the point, you should retire hurt, and come back when you're better.

That would be even worse.

The slower batsmen could retire hurt at a time when they need quick runs and let the hitters come in for them ,when as required.

For example India need 320 runs to win a series where they are 1-0 down in the final test on the last day and they are off to a slow start and are at 125-3 at 45 overs.

In this situation a Batsmen,say like Dravid could retire hurt and let in Harbhajan for a quick pinch hitter job ,without risking his wicket taking a more attacking approach.

 

[zaremba]

I really don't see what the big deal is about using a runner. No-one is going to be stupid enough to use a runner to gain a tactical advantage - the risk of a run-out is never far away - and it prevents injuries disrupting and unbalancing the game as much as they otherwise would. Seems a sensible rule to me, and I don't know why everyone seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about it.

 

[Cevno]

I really don't see what the big deal is about using a runner. No-one is going to be stupid enough to use a runner to gain a tactical advantage - the risk of a run-out is never far away - and it prevents injuries disrupting and unbalancing the game as much as they otherwise would. Seems a sensible rule to me, and I don't know why everyone seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about it.

Agreed.

The Fat ,Unfit man has a right to play cricket too.

And it makes cricket unique in that respect.

 

[slowfinger]

I love that idea!

Same.

 

[Athlai]

Everyone is saying you should retire hurt if you have heat stroke but these blokes value their wicket so highly that they'd stay out there and risk injury to themselves instead of retiring.
I have no problem with the runner rule personally as long as the opposing captain allows it and the batsman needs it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Arjuna Ranatunga to disagree.









After he eats another pizza.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd have a huge issue, as a player, giving a runner to someone with "discomfort" or cramps.

If making runs was easy, everyone'd be doing it.

 

[NUFAN]

It does kinda suck but there's so many run outs with a runner out there that it's really not worth a side's trouble trying to abuse the rule in tests.

I don't think run outs occur that often, especially not if both batsman (or should I say all 3 batsman) are genuine batsman and not tail enders.

I think the rule for cramps is a load of bollocks personally. If you cramp up, retire hurt and come back when you are better, or do as Brumby said and come in at number 11 with a runner.

 

[Uppercut]

They certainly happen often enough to make attempting to exploit the runner rule in a test match an obviously bad idea, though.

 

[andyc]

Think Goughy's suggestion has merit but is a bit too harsh in making him be the last man in. If you've been off the field for too long, you're not allowed to bat in the top 6, right? Should have something similar for batting with a runner; you have to retire hurt and can come out with a runner at numbers 7 or below.

 

[Craig]

Arjuna Ranatunga to disagree.









After he eats another pizza.

You mention him and Ian Healy's quote sprints immediately to mind. If we're going to change the rules, I would follow andy's suggestion, and make it at the discretion of the umpire.

 

[Jono]

Everyone is saying you should retire hurt if you have heat stroke but these blokes value their wicket so highly that they'd stay out there and risk injury to themselves instead of retiring.
I have no problem with the runner rule personally as long as the opposing captain allows it and the batsman needs it.

You don't lose your wicket if you retire hurt. They can just retire hurt and come back when they can run.

 

[Jono]

That would be even worse.

The slower batsmen could retire hurt at a time when they need quick runs and let the hitters come in for them ,when as required.

For example India need 320 runs to win a series where they are 1-0 down in the final test on the last day and they are off to a slow start and are at 125-3 at 45 overs.

In this situation a Batsmen,say like Dravid could retire hurt and let in Harbhajan for a quick pinch hitter job ,without risking his wicket taking a more attacking approach.

They can already do that, there is no rule from preventing that.

 

[Athlai]

You don't lose your wicket if you retire hurt. They can just retire hurt and come back when they can walk.

Basically do though, sure you can come back later but you're starting a whole new innings pretty much.

 

[joels344]

I see no problem with using a runner. There's also plenty of confusion when a batsman has a runner, so I understand why captains allow it happen. It can lead to a run-out, if the other team isn't careful.