Current run out rules - do they need to change?

[Bijed]

This doesn't work because the ball goes dead as soon as a dismissal occurs. Would require a serious restructuring of the game to allow for 'double-plays', as they're called in baseball. If the ball doesn't go dead after a dismissal it means you could theoretically score runs after a dismissal too...

Admittedly my technical knowledge of how the laws are structured is poor, but could the current run-out laws not be extended to say something (with more 'official' wording and generally better syntax) like:

"In the event of a run-out occurring, the ball shall not be declared dead until either of the following conditions has been fulfilled:

• The remaining batsman regains their ground
• The remaining batsman is dismissed by means of the wicket that has not been broken to effect the dismissal also being broken before the batsman regains their ground

No runs may be awarded to the batting side further than those already completed before the dismissal was effected."

 

[fredfertang]

Admittedly my technical knowledge of how the laws are structured is poor, but could the current run-out laws not be extended to say something (with more 'official' wording and generally better syntax) like:

"In the event of a run-out occurring, the ball shall not be declared dead until either of the following conditions has been fulfilled:

• The remaining batsman regains their ground
• The remaining batsman is dismissed by means of the wicket that has not been broken to effect the dismissal also being broken before the batsman regains their ground

No runs may be awarded to the batting side further than those already completed before the dismissal was effected."

Of course it could, even Theresa May's lot would be able to draft the necessary, not Grayling, Davies, Johnson or Truss obviously, but some of them would be able to manage it

 

[cnerd123]

It's not a case of 'can we modify the rules to let this happen' but more of 'why are we making an exemption to the way things work just in this particular scenario'. They really only do this to readress the balance of the game or to correct any loopholes that players may be taking advantage of

No one is taking advantage of the ball going dead after a runout, so to change this just to have a cool new highlight reel piece of fielding in the game doesn't seem justifed.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

What happens if the batsmen cross between the first and second run out? Is the batsman run out twice and not allowed to bat in the next innings/game?

 

[cnerd123]

So here is the MCC Laws of Cricket Consultation directed at rule changes in 2017. Some very interesting insights here into the thought processes that go on behind the law changes:

https://www.lords.org/assets/MCC-Laws-of-Cricket-Consultation.pdf

And here are all the propose law changes for the October 2017 revision, as of 6th March (things could be added/changed in the meanwhile I would guess):

https://www.lords.org/news/2017/march/mcc-announces-new-code-of-laws/

 

[cnerd123]

Here is a very interesting one:

Other changes to the Laws include the number of modes of dismissal being reduced from ten to nine, with ‘Handled the ball’ being subsumed into ‘Obstructing the field’. This will have no effect on whether or not a batsman is dismissed.

Who is the last batsman to have been dismissed Handling the Ball? They could very well be the last player ever to be dismissed that way...

 

[Howe_zat]

That's not a good decision imo, especially if the point is to simplify. 'Obstructing the field' is given when a player deliberately interferes with the fielding process, which is complicated but at least easy to understand on the surface. Being given out 'obstructing the field' before a fielder has touched the ball or attempts to doesn't sit right.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

The main way I've seen handled ball result in a dismissal is when the ball has been almost played on and the batsman has had a brain explosion and hit the ball away from the stumps with his hand. That doesn't really relate to obstructing the field at all ... so I agree, strange move to combine them.

 

[Bijed]

I mean, the two here aren't totally dissimilar so I wouldn't think it a total farce if the change is made (though I agree that it would be strange), especially as they're both uncommon modes of dismissal, but then of course if things are fine as they are, why waste time, money and effort changing them?

Feels like they're making a change just for the sake of it, maybe just to make the point that they look at things like this.