View Poll Results: Should The DRS (Decision Review System) Be A Part Of Cricket?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 81.25%
  • No

    2 12.50%
  • Ask Someone Who Cares Coz I Couldn't Care Less

    1 6.25%
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 123
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: Rules That Need To Be Modified, Added or Trashed

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator tshep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    25

    Icon6 Rules That Need To Be Modified, Added or Trashed

    What rules don't have a place in our game and should be trashed or at least modified.

    Do you have an awesome rule that would make a good addition to the game of cricket. Any rule that might get narrow minded kids to think about joining cricket

    Give me some (and complete the poll above at the same time if u can)...

    Cheers
    Tshep
    James Pattinson> Dayle Steyn> Jimmy Anderson> Ryan Harris> Stewart Broad

  2. #2
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,957
    more comprehensive time-wasting related rules.

  3. #3
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,766
    The ball has to touch/ go over the rope to be four. Save all the replays when blokes dive to stop the ball. Shouldn't matter if the fielder touches the rope but the ball doesn't

  4. #4
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,951
    Agree with the boundary thing. Current law is stupid.


  5. #5
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,905
    posters need a minimum of 5000 posts before starting a thread
    BeeGee, Flem274* and Prince EWS like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    I just love all kinds of balls.

  6. #6
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,336
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    posters need a minimum of 5000 posts before starting a thread
    I would complain, but after last night's debacle I don't think I will
    Last edited by Maximas; 06-10-2013 at 06:19 PM.
    Prince EWS likes this.
    There are two colours in my head

    Sugarealm

  7. #7
    U19 12th Man TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    The ball has to touch/ go over the rope to be four. Save all the replays when blokes dive to stop the ball. Shouldn't matter if the fielder touches the rope but the ball doesn't
    This.

    As for DRS I think it's fine the way it is, as long as the umpiring is competent. People were complaining during the Ashes that there were DRS errors, but completely ignore the fact that those decisions would still be wrong without DRS and we would have had exponentially more bad umpiring decisions if we didn't have DRS.

    Anything that leads to more correct decisions is a good rule in my book.
    hendrix likes this.

  8. #8
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,951
    I don't really understand why you can get an LBW if the ball pitches outside off, but not if it pitches outside leg. It's completely illogical to me, and penalizes a leg spinner but not an offspinner.

    If the ball pitches outside leg, but hits in line and is going to hit the stumps, why shouldn't it be LBW?

  9. #9
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    I don't really understand why you can get an LBW if the ball pitches outside off, but not if it pitches outside leg. It's completely illogical to me, and penalizes a leg spinner but not an offspinner.

    If the ball pitches outside leg, but hits in line and is going to hit the stumps, why shouldn't it be LBW?
    because your legs are on the leg side of your body, while the bat is on the other side. It's always harder to get some bat on something going down the leg side than it is the off side - hence less leniency for leg side wides in short format cricket.

  10. #10
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,336
    Imagine if you had to play a shot at every Shane Warne ball he bowled into the footmarks from round the wicket, he would've had 1000 test wickets.

  11. #11
    U19 12th Man TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    I don't really understand why you can get an LBW if the ball pitches outside off, but not if it pitches outside leg. It's completely illogical to me, and penalizes a leg spinner but not an offspinner.

    If the ball pitches outside leg, but hits in line and is going to hit the stumps, why shouldn't it be LBW?
    No that is a very important rule. It's hard to play balls that pitch outside your legs, especially from spinners. If you pay LBWs that pitch outside leg then playing leg-spin will become exceedingly difficult.

    EDIT: ^They both said it first

  12. #12
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    because your legs are on the leg side of your body, while the bat is on the other side. It's always harder to get some bat on something going down the leg side than it is the off side - hence less leniency for leg side wides in short format cricket.
    Yeh, I guess so. I guess Murali bowling to a LH is the same as Warne bowling to a RH.

  13. #13
    U19 Debutant Biryani Pillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    I don't know, but its dark!!!!!
    Posts
    324
    An amendment to an existing Law I would bring in is that the wicket is deemed 'broken' at the point of contact which causes the bail to leave the stumps.

    This would have no effect in Club and most FC cricket but in a televised game it would take out the problem "had the bail left the groove before the batsman made his ground" which is often hard to see as it is between frames.

    I also see logic in saying that when the stumps are broken by an act of fielding (hit by the ball or by a hand or hands (or arm of the hand) holding the ball) the ball becomes dead. Although batsmen tend not to run in such a situation if the ball crosses the boundary it has penalised good fielding.

    I would scrap the Law relating to above waist high full tosses where an automatic warning system currently has to be enforced. Keep it as a no ball and revert to the old way - if the umpires believe there was intent the bowler is immediately removed from the attack and can't bowl again.

  14. #14
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Biryani Pillow View Post
    An amendment to an existing Law I would bring in is that the wicket is deemed 'broken' at the point of contact which causes the bail to leave the stumps.

    This would have no effect in Club and most FC cricket but in a televised game it would take out the problem "had the bail left the groove before the batsman made his ground" which is often hard to see as it is between frames.

    I also see logic in saying that when the stumps are broken by an act of fielding (hit by the ball or by a hand or hands (or arm of the hand) holding the ball) the ball becomes dead. Although batsmen tend not to run in such a situation if the ball crosses the boundary it has penalised good fielding.

    I would scrap the Law relating to above waist high full tosses where an automatic warning system currently has to be enforced. Keep it as a no ball and revert to the old way - if the umpires believe there was intent the bowler is immediately removed from the attack and can't bowl again.

    I agree with all of these things. Especially the bail being removed thing. I'd much prefer that as soon as the ball hits the stumps is the point in which the batsman must be home to save his wicket.

  15. #15
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    The ball has to touch/ go over the rope to be four. Save all the replays when blokes dive to stop the ball. Shouldn't matter if the fielder touches the rope but the ball doesn't
    yep

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Smilies you'd like to see added/replaced
    By benchmark00 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 28-05-2011, 03:42 PM
  2. THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 21-10-2005, 07:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •