Rules That Need To Be Modified, Added or Trashed

[TheJediBrah]

Pretty sure they don't..

Not sure if serious . . .

 

[uvelocity]

what happens if the fielder moves the boundary rope before the ball touches it and then paints a wider line where the rope moved to. stuart broad someone who would do this btw

 

[Daemon]

*stewart broad

 

[TheJediBrah]

^good point

I stand corrected

 

[Daemon]

Why thank you

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why thank you

I still think you could solve that issue by not allowing players to step on the field with paint brushes. Don't give up on me yet.

 

[Vic Trumper]

*Richie Benaud voice*

Bring back the old no ball law... Marvelous.

 

[Maximas]

Backfoot no-balls? Ian Chappell was keen on that in a cricinfo piece iirc

 

[Vic Trumper]

It's less confusing in one respect, but in another bowlers can get away with murder if they can drag.

 

[uvelocity]

stuart broad also likes drag

 

[The Battlers Prince]

It's less confusing in one respect, but in another bowlers can get away with murder if they can drag.

It would be good fun if they played a world XI game with old rules, back foot no ball, 8 ball overs etc. See how it goes.

 

[Vic Trumper]

stuart broad also likes drag

Priceless. Hahaha.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

I would also take one Law that is about to come in, 'The Steven Finn Rule', tear it up and put it on the fire.

The subject has come up quite a lot this summer in conversation with players and umpires and not one thinks it's other than a stupid idea.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Penalties for slow over rates need to be kept to fines, if not abolished all together.

 

[Burgey]

I'll mark the boundary line at the scg if it gets me a five day ticket to the test.

 

[andyc]

I would also take one Law that is about to come in, 'The Steven Finn Rule', tear it up and put it on the fire.

The subject has come up quite a lot this summer in conversation with players and umpires and not one thinks it's other than a stupid idea.

Don't see what's wrong with it. It's not ****ing hard to not hit the stumps on your way in, and I can see how it would be distracting to the batsman. You'd think it's in the fielding team's best interest to avoid it from happening too, given that it makes the chance of a run out a bit harder.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would also take one Law that is about to come in, 'The Steven Finn Rule', tear it up and put it on the fire.

The subject has come up quite a lot this summer in conversation with players and umpires and not one thinks it's other than a stupid idea.

I might be mistaken but are you saying you think it shouldn't be a no-ball?

Seems to me that's the only option. It certainly can't be left as a legal ball, it's completely unfair on the batsman. A dead-ball would be ok but that could lead to serious issues, what if the batsman hits in for four and then it gets called a dead ball?

I suppose the only other option would be to make it sort of like a "free hit" in T20s, it's still a legal ball but the batsman can't get out to it.

Otherwise a No-ball is the only option.

 

[Riggins]

Don't see what's wrong with it. It's not ****ing hard to not hit the stumps on your way in, and I can see how it would be distracting to the batsman. You'd think it's in the fielding team's best interest to avoid it from happening too, given that it makes the chance of a run out a bit harder.

something i've wondered for a while - obviously if the bails are off you need to pull out the stump to get a run out - if you rocketed the ball from point or somewhere, and took the stump out of the ground with the throw, would that be out?

 

[TheJediBrah]

something i've wondered for a while - obviously if the bails are off you need to pull out the stump to get a run out - if you rocketed the ball from point or somewhere, and took the stump out of the ground with the throw, would that be out?

Yes. If the bail is off the stump needs to be removed.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

I might be mistaken but are you saying you think it shouldn't be a no-ball?

Seems to me that's the only option. It certainly can't be left as a legal ball, it's completely unfair on the batsman. A dead-ball would be ok but that could lead to serious issues, what if the batsman hits in for four and then it gets called a dead ball?

I suppose the only other option would be to make it sort of like a "free hit" in T20s, it's still a legal ball but the batsman can't get out to it.

Otherwise a No-ball is the only option.

No, it shouldn't be a no ball.

From personal experience when playing (supported by every batsman who spoke on the matter - some of whom are now in their 70s but played very good Club cricket when younger) the batsman is not put off at all when this happens. The chances of them hearing it are very small - and there will likely be other louder noises that won't put them off - and the batsman will be so focused on the ball that they wouldn't see it.

That is the view of some hugely experienced players.

I wouldn't be surprised if within a couple of years there will be so many complaints from all levels of the game about thi ludicrous Law that in will be reversed.