No runners ever and yes to UDRS

[Top_Cat]

I get it, I don't agree though. Like I said, it's not as well-earned as runs through a great shot or good placement but it's still earned in my book if you try to draw the throw by taking a quick single. A measure like that, we'd probably see a lot less of them because it wouldn't be worth the risk.

 

[Cruxdude]

Kind of mixed feelings about no runners. If a player gets injured in the middle of the game and could bat but not run, I think he should get a runner. No runners for cramps and being fat.

Think removing leg-byes would just be more pain for the umpires. Agree about overthrows being counted as extras. Against totally removing it when the throw hit the stumps. We see many cases when players just randomly throw at the stumps even though the batsmen are comfortably in.

 

[vcs]

Agree on the first part here ,but what is wrong with the part in bold and how the heck would they judge it?



Like none of these ideas.

All those measures sound interesting to me, especially the one about removing the quota of overs per bowler for ODIs. Gives teams with a weak attack, but one good bowler a better chance. Otherwise it's too easy for batting sides to play out 10 overs without taking a risk.

 

[Days of Grace]

No runner won't work unless you allow substitutions.

.

Jesse Ryder would be ****ed for one thing.

Almost every time he hits a substantial score, he ends up with a runner.

 

[Daemon]

I get it, I don't agree though. Like I said, it's not as well-earned as runs through a great shot or good placement but it's still earned in my book if you try to draw the throw by taking a quick single. A measure like that, we'd probably see a lot less of them because it wouldn't be worth the risk.

Pretty sure no batsmen ever has consciously tried to 'draw' an accurate throw from a fielder by taking a quick single, just so he can benefit off the extra runs from the ricochet.

If the fielder gets in a poor and inaccurate throw and the batsmen get extra runs, thats fine by me, but if the ball hits the stumps there should be no reason why the batsmen should get any extra runs.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

All good measures but I refuse to call this anywhere near adequate whilst the ball can hit the stumps on a near run out and go for two, three, four extra runs. Worst rule in existence.

^This. Makes me rage every time.

 

[marc71178]

Kind of mixed feelings about no runners. If a player gets injured in the middle of the game and could bat but not run, I think he should get a runner. No runners for cramps and being fat.

Agree with this.

One gripe I have about the runner is that they can start immediately whereas the batsman needs to compose himself.

For example in an ODI a bowler bowls a well directed bouncer that hits the batsman and lands 3 yards away. The runner had all but completed the run before the batsman would've been ready to start it. Not sure how you can police that though (disallow the run?)

 

[hang on]

never did care too much about the cannot be lbw if it pitched outside the legstump line rule.

to imagine that in the 30s they they had the offstump version of it too...

 

[Nate]

I would love no runners.

 

[Spark]

Crawl!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But probably the most ******** LAW OF ALL, is the one where say if a team needs 1 to win and the batsman hits a four but they complete one run, then only one run counts, not the 4 runs, even though the ball is bouncing back off the boundary. CRAZY. They only changed within the last 10 years, and Ian Chappell has a big rant on air whenever it happens. Why would they even think to change that in the first place??

The only reason for that is because it can confuse the record books. In 1948 Australia made 404 in the fourth innings to win the Test at Headingley and for several years that was the highest fourth innings score to win a match. In 1976 India were set 403 to win a Test in Port of Spain and hit a four with the score on 402. This meant that by scoring 406 in the fourth innings to win they'd broken the record set by Australia for the most runs scored in the fourth innings to win a Test. It was a false record because they'd scored three runs more than they needed to.

 

[Top_Cat]

Pretty sure no batsmen ever has consciously tried to 'draw' an accurate throw from a fielder by taking a quick single, just so he can benefit off the extra runs from the ricochet.

Well, I know plenty who do, good ones too. I didn't say they're looking specifically for a ricochet anyway, you're the one fixating on that. You're saying no batsman has ever had it in mind to take a quick single with the possibility in mind to entice a fielder to have a ping? Come off it.

If they want to make that arbitrary distinction, fine, it's easy enough to police (call dead ball if the ball takes the stumps on a direct hit attempt) but in my opinion it's not going to add to the game in a meaningful way so I don't see the point in changing the rule other than to satisfy the game's mildly autistic fans.

 

[Uppercut]

Definitely think batsmen should be given out for running between the ball and the stumps. Surely that's the definition of "obstructing the field"?

 

[Andre]

Jesse Ryder would be ****ed for one thing.

Almost every time he hits a substantial score, he ends up with a runner.

Yeah but this is exactly why I'd be getting rid of runners. I genuinely don't mind them if someone has torn a hamstring etc. but jeez, guys who make a big score and start running out of puff and cramping up, that is a fitness issue.

The fact that guys can have runners for being unfit and cramping up is an absolute blight on the game IMO, I applaud the decision to take them out but I do feel for the guys who occassionally are genuinely injured and need them. Would hate to see a side lose a game because a bloke who tore a hamstring couldn't come out to bat at 11 cause he couldn't move.

By and large, though, runners these days seem to be for guys who have run out off puff rather than pick up a genuine injury.

 

[Top_Cat]

Definitely think batsmen should be given out for running between the ball and the stumps. Surely that's the definition of "obstructing the field"?

Pretty much impossible to prove a batsman moved to deliberately block a fielder's throw without an admission of same from them. A batter can just claim it was instinctive and you can't really contradict them unless it's really blatant.

 

[Daemon]

Well, I know plenty who do, good ones too. I didn't say they're looking specifically for a ricochet anyway, you're the one fixating on that. You're saying no batsman has ever had it in mind to take a quick single with the possibility in mind to entice a fielder to have a ping? Come off it.

If they want to make that arbitrary distinction, fine, it's easy enough to police (call dead ball if the ball takes the stumps on a direct hit attempt) but in my opinion it's not going to add to the game in a meaningful way so I don't see the point in changing the rule other than to satisfy the game's mildly autistic fans.

So I'm mildly autistic. Sweet. I assume the loads of others who agree that the rule be changed are as well.

Anyways my bad if you didn't say that batsmen draw throws to get fielders to hit the stumps and run off the ricochet. cbf to check now. Also I honestly don't know anyone who runs to get fielders to throw anyways. Not the best thing to do imo. It's looking for overthrows yes but thats assuming theres no one backing up and/or an inaccurate throw with the added possibility of getting out.

 

[smash84]

So I'm mildly autistic. Sweet. I assume the loads of others who agree that the rule be changed are as well.

Anyways my bad if you didn't say that batsmen draw throws to get fielders to hit the stumps and run off the ricochet. cbf to check now. Also I honestly don't know anyone who runs to get fielders to throw anyways. Not the best thing to do imo. It's looking for overthrows yes but thats assuming theres no one backing up and/or an inaccurate throw with the added possibility of getting out.

IIRC Javed Miandad used to do that a lot. He was a fantastic runner between the wickets as well. One of the best ever I think.

Also I recall Rantaunga doing that quite a bit.

 

[Daemon]

Aaand how exactly would you know that? Unless they stated themselves in interviews or something.

 

[smash84]

Aaand how exactly would you know that? Unless they stated themselves in interviews or something.

Oh....Ranatunga would just take off for a run and then start strolling when he was near the non-striker's crease to force the fielder to have a shy at the stumps. He would do that very often.

 

[Uppercut]

Pretty much impossible to prove a batsman moved to deliberately block a fielder's throw without an admission of same from them. A batter can just claim it was instinctive and you can't really contradict them unless it's really blatant.

Aha, I don't think any jury would hold that the batsman putting themselves in the way of a fast-moving chunk of boiled leather is the natural instinctive reaction.

But I don't really care if it's instinctive or not. Breaking the rules instinctively is still breaking the rules.