Rules That Need To Be Modified, Added or Trashed

[wiff]

Long pants should be outlawed. Also crotch rubbing is ball abuse.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Excuse me?

um. Can I ease the tension by saying ARB is awesome?

 

[Lokomotiv]

According to the Laws of Cricket, the number of balls of 1 over is 6 or 8.

In limited-over games -- 1 over 6 balls
In Tests -- 1 over 8 balls

What do you think?

 

[CricAddict]

According to the Laws of Cricket, the number of balls of 1 over is 6 or 8.

In limited-over games -- 1 over 6 balls
In Tests -- 1 over 8 balls

What do you think?

Why?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Change the number of balls per over to 3. This would effectively double the over-rates of teams which have been horrendous lately.

Yeah agreed. However, it might seem a bit unfair if the fielder dives and pushes the rope further back before stopping it, by which point the ball has already rolled over where the rope would have been initially.

Not an issue. The rule in that case would be, as it always has been, the position the rope is at, not if the ball actually physically hits the rope itself. Under the rope the grass is usually coloured differently or something so you can tell if the ball went over the boundary. So essentially the rope isn't the boundary, the boundary is just where the rope usually lies.

 

[Daemon]

Change the number of balls per over to 3. This would effectively double the over-rates of teams which have been horrendous lately.



Not an issue. The rule in that case would be, as it always has been, the position the rope is at, not if the ball actually physically hits the rope itself. Under the rope the grass is usually coloured differently or something so you can tell if the ball went over the boundary. So essentially the rope isn't the boundary, the boundary is just where the rope usually lies.

Would mean watching replays though, which the whole point of this new rule is to eliminate as much as possible. Also adds a bit of ambiguity which is a recipe for controversy. Could be solved by painting the boundary lines I guess.

 

[Lokomotiv]

Why?

By increasing the number of balls of 1 over from 6 to 8, the time of breaks between overs can be reduced.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Would mean watching replays though, which the whole point of this new rule is to eliminate as much as possible. Also adds a bit of ambiguity which is a recipe for controversy. Could be solved by painting the boundary lines I guess.

No it wouldn't. You can just as easily tell if the ball went over the line than if it hit the rope without needing a replay.

 

[Daemon]

No it wouldn't. You can just as easily tell if the ball went over the line than if it hit the rope without needing a replay.

In most cases yeah, but not when there's a 150 pound grown man diving on top of it

 

[Riggins]

Yeah agreed. However, it might seem a bit unfair if the fielder dives and pushes the rope further back before stopping it, by which point the ball has already rolled over where the rope would have been initially.

So all those times where the fielder dives, moves the rope, waits for the ball to cross what he's just moved, and then fields it?

 

[TheJediBrah]

In most cases yeah, but not when there's a 150 pound grown man diving on top of it

Which is the case for either set of rules so I don't see what you're getting at.

*Side note how many cricketers would be only 150lbs ? Not many I'd say.

 

[Daemon]

I agreed to the rule change ffs, leave me alone.

 

[Riggins]

Lots of those little sri lankans, probably.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I agreed to the rule change ffs, leave me alone.

No I want to argue about things

 

[Burgey]

In most cases yeah, but not when there's a 150 pound grown man diving on top of it

You line-mark the ground underneath where the boundary is set. Ball crosses that mark, it's four.

 

[Daemon]

You line-mark the ground underneath where the boundary is set. Ball crosses that mark, it's four.

Could be solved by painting the boundary lines I guess.

.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They do that already . . . nothing needs "solving"

 

[Adders]

No I want to argue about things

You need a point to argue with first ****.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You need a point to argue with first ****.

No I don't.
















See.

 

[Daemon]

They do that already . . . nothing needs "solving"

Pretty sure they don't..