Things that should be changed in cricket

[raju]

Pretty much the perfect game as it is.

BUT more use of the 3rd umpire to prevent shocking LBWs...Demot Reeve's idea of a batting side having 3 appeals against decisions could work OK as there wouldn't be 3 refferals an over.

All english county sides to get test match status. Play the big games at the big grounds but when Bang or Zim are in town let Hove, Canterbury, Worcester and the rest be used even if it means they only get 1 test match every 10 years. A three quarters empty Old Trafford is depressing.

IMO any experimentation with the rules (subs. etc.) should be left to the one-day game where tinkering doesn't interfere with the purity of the sport as that is the bastardized (but still enjoyable) form of the game.

 

[Craig]

I think the reasoning behind it is that the wicketkeeper is a specialist, just like a bowler or batsman. If either one of those get injured, you can't bring in someone to replace them - the same as a wicketkeeper. You might pick an ordinary keeper who is a great batsman. You bat first, rack up a big score and your 'keeper' gets 'injured' and replaced by your specialist. You then have the best of both worlds. If one of your players is unfortunate enough to get injured, you are then without their skills for the match. The other way is too open to abuse.

But shouldnt in the opinion of the match refree detrime what is acceptable injury or not. I mean most people can see if somebody is faking or not.

And you can perhaps get a couple of doctors - if possible, who have nothing do w ith the two countries playing (ie not from there to not to bring in any bias) and get their opinions.

 

[Richard]

I think video umpiring should be looked at and I like the idea of lbw using HawkEye (runs and hides)

IMO there are far more important things to alter about technology use than lbws:
First, rewrite the guidelines regarding catches carrying. Unless the third-Umpire can say for certain that the ball has bounced, he shall not be allowed to put on the green light. The red and white lights should be used almost always, because most of the time the Umpires in the field will be closer to the action than any camera.
Second, do something about the calling of no-balls. Some cameramen estimate 20 to 30 missed PER DAY. It's not complicated; you just install a device similar to the Cyclops used in tennis somewhere appropriate, and upon overstepping the Umpire immidiately is made aware by a bleeper or vibrator in his pocket. He immidiately declares dead-ball and the next ball does not count to the over but any runs scored do count to the total. From the next ball normal service is resumed (though in National League and ING Cup of course you have another free-hit, off a ball which does count to the over).
Third, make the third-Umpire available for any bowled or did-he-hit-it question, and for did-he-hit-it questions the Snicko, surely the best of any ingenuities, must be available.
After you've dealt with this then you can worry about the lbw law. And first you use red-zones and fades; while Flight-Path schemes are generally accurate, for me there is a definate fault with full balls on the leg, which appear closer to the off than they are.
Any Flight-Path use in Umpiring must be the last thing to come in IMO.

 

[marc71178]

for did-he-hit-it questions the Snicko, surely the best of any ingenuities, must be available.

Are you serious?

Snicko is nowhere near accurate - number of other possible hits that register means there is no way it can be deemed one of the best!

 

[pontingrulz]

mate if you've ever looked at snicko the nick is registered as a long thin line and say a bat hitting pad is registered as a short fat line. snicko sounds good to me as does hawk eye and the cyclops type thing

 

[Neil Pickup]

Bat hitting ground, ball and pad at the same time?

 

[Richard]

Occasions where Snicko produces inconclusive results are as rare as Test-series' where Tendulkar fails to score a half-century.
You combine the camera and the Snicko and you'll always be able to see for certain what happened, because of the difference in oscillograph shapes and the timing.

 

[pontingrulz]

well said

 

[Richard]

Bat hitting ground, ball and pad at the same time?

And how often does that happen?
I would say almost never without obvious deviation in the ball (and when there is such no noise-detector is needed). I've certainly never seen it.
Anyway, if so, you simply have to say "I could never tell that with my eye, unfortunately neither can the technological aid, so I shall still have to give it not-out".
It happens every now and then, even with stumpings and run-outs. Nothing will ever be perfection - it's just about making it as good as you possibly can.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nothing will ever be perfection - it's just about making it as good as you possibly can.

I disagree.

 

[Richard]

What - that you'll never get every decision right, or that there are no better ways of distinguishing a nick than Snickometer?

 

[Neil Pickup]

If every decision was perfect, cricket wouldn't be half the game it is.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Too true :P

 

[Richard]

As I say, incorrect or possibly incorrect decisions will never be completely eradicated, but I would say the fairer the game for the players, the better it is. All right, a bad Umpiring decision can add to the drama, but if it's significant it inevitably leads to the Umpire being derided and people can then make-out that the whole match hinged on one decision.
For me, the less bad decisions there are in the game the better. It would be different, IMO it would never be worse. Similarly, if fielding and wicketkeeping got back to the standards they apparently attained in the 1930s and 50s (ie far less dropped catches and missed stumpings than there are ATM) cricket would also be a better game.
And you wouldn't need to worry about my muttering on about luck, because there wouldn't be any!
Still, I suppose most people reckon the game would be lesser with less luck. I think otherwise. Faultless fielding is a joy in itself to watch.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I find it hard to believe that fielding is worse now than in the 1950s with the amount of OD cricket played. Wicketkeeping I can accept as it's no longer a specialist position.

 

[Craig]

Does Mark Nicholas' idea of alternating umpires every session ina Test have any merit?

Or is this guy normally a crackpot?

 

[pontingrulz]

not really. what would be the point of having like 10 umpires stand in one test match

 

[pontingrulz]

and there wouldnt be enough umpires on stand by as multiple tests may be played on one given date

 

[marc71178]

not really. what would be the point of having like 10 umpires stand in one test match

and there wouldnt be enough umpires on stand by as multiple tests may be played on one given date

Which only serves to show that you haven't even read the proposal and have just commented on something you have no knowledge over.

The proposal is for a team of 3 umpires in one game, and each umpire for 2 sessions in a day.

Personally it's not something I'm in favour of, but I can see some merits in it.

 

[Richard]

Does Mark Nicholas' idea of alternating umpires every session ina Test have any merit?

Or is this guy normally a crackpot?

I would certainly not rate MCJ as a crackpot.
It's not something I'd do unless Umpires decided they liked the idea. Most of them seem fine with the current system.