Cricket rules : what should be in and out

[Craig]

Or how about reducing the amount of cricket that is played and how about a decent break between Tests?

Two days between Tests is a joke, no wonder fast bowlers get injured.

 

[Linda]

Or how about reducing the amount of cricket that is played and how about a decent break between Tests?

Two days between Tests is a joke, no wonder fast bowlers get injured.

Yes definately.

Just back to the boundary rope for a sec, I reckon if someone is feilding the ball near the rope and they touch the rope, it should still be called safe.
The ball is what should matter, who cares whether the feilder's left big toe is slightly touching the rope while his finger is touching the ball. Its a bloody good effort on his part, so reward it! Solves the problem of 3rd Ump in those decisions too.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yes definately.

Just back to the boundary rope for a sec, I reckon if someone is feilding the ball near the rope and they touch the rope, it should still be called safe.
The ball is what should matter, who cares whether the feilder's left big toe is slightly touching the rope while his finger is touching the ball. Its a bloody good effort on his part, so reward it! Solves the problem of 3rd Ump in those decisions too.

No. That's ridiculous. That means a fielder can run over the rope to catch a six, by your definition that would be ok, because the ball hasn't touched the ground. That is the reason this rule was brought in, in the first place.

 

[Linda]

Im sure the specifics can be touched up.
You know what I mean, I'm not talking about sixes.

 

[Waughney]

Yes definately.

Just back to the boundary rope for a sec, I reckon if someone is feilding the ball near the rope and they touch the rope, it should still be called safe.
The ball is what should matter, who cares whether the feilder's left big toe is slightly touching the rope while his finger is touching the ball. Its a bloody good effort on his part, so reward it! Solves the problem of 3rd Ump in those decisions too.

I actually don't mind this rule. The fielder has to really scamper to save the boundary, so in the end the hungrier fielding side saves the most runs....

 

[Simon]

im sure everyone will disagree with the rule change id like to see, but i think a player should be able to be given out LBW if the ball pitches outside leg stump, i know people will say stuff about negative bowling, but its part of cricket and why should batsman get every advantage, if u arent good enough to hit a ball that pitches outside leg stump you arent going very well IMO...

 

[Revelation]

i can agree with that rule BUT in an effort to stamp out the negative bowling, a new rule stating that anything that passes down leg is a wide should also be introduced, like in ODI's.

 

[Simon]

lol naa cant agree with that, tight negative bowling, if it comes to that is part of the game. I wouldnt have a problem with giles bowling 15 overs over the wicket to ponting straight at his pads in a row. if ponting is good enough to hit he will, the only reason we dont see it now as much is because its taking a mode of dismissal out of the equasion.

 

[Craig]

If the batsman isn't going to play a shot, and it pitches outside leg and it has struck him in line, then most definatly.

 

[Simon]

yeh im getting at that, but i also feel on any delivery, even if a shot is being offered.
of course the same rules would apply with the ball hitting him outside the line means he cant be out.

 

[Richard]

That makes any rubbish bowler who can pitch the ball anywhere near the rough a very big danger. It also makes harmless bang-it-in from around-the-wicket much more dangerous.
That rule has been in place for as long as it has for a reason IMO.
One thing I'd bring-in, after reference to boundary-ropes, is a minimum boundary of 90 yards. If it's shorter than that, sixes are banned.
We see far too many boundaries that are far too short nowadays.

 

[Simon]

LOL u are kidding right, some grounds arent even 90 yards to the fence and the rope is brought in for safety reasons!

 

[Richard]

No, not at all, that's just the point - plenty of grounds aren't good enough for List-A cricket, they're too small.
My club's ground is bigger than Taunton's ground, FCOL.

 

[steds]

Really????? Where's this club???????????????????????????????

I think your exxagerating a touch

 

[Mister Wright]

No, not at all, that's just the point - plenty of grounds aren't good enough for List-A cricket, they're too small.
My club's ground is bigger than Taunton's ground, FCOL.

It would make cricket pretty boring IMHO if all the grounds were a regluation size. The great thing about cricket is the different grounds all around the world, some countries like Sri Lanka & New Zealand have smaller grounds (even rectangular grounds), then other countries like Australian have bigger grounds.

 

[Mister Wright]

I was just thinking this morning (rare I know! But it did happen), that the substitute fielder should be taken out of the game. I don't know any other sport where you can make up a player for one that is injured. Even in sports like Rugby League and Basketball where you have substitues, if a player gets injured you are not aloud to just bring in another player who wasn't named in the original squad. Say in league if 5 players are injured, you can't bring in the '18th man' to make 13 on the field. Or basketball, you can't have an '11th man' to make 5 on the court if 6 get injured. This would force teams to make harder decisions on who just is fit, and who is not. It is also unfair on the batting side, if a batsman retires hurt, and can't go out to bat, it is not like the 12th man can come and act as a runner (not bat, like the substitute fielder, can't bowl) for the last 'not out' batsman is there? Yet the fielding side can field 11 players if a player is injured!

 

[Craig]

Really????? Where's this club???????????????????????????????

I think your exxagerating a touch

Exeter Cricket Club.

The only way you will know (unless you have been to both) is if you have a photo of each ground and compare it.

 

[Simon]

I was just thinking this morning (rare I know! But it did happen), that the substitute fielder should be taken out of the game. I don't know any other sport where you can make up a player for one that is injured. Even in sports like Rugby League and Basketball where you have substitues, if a player gets injured you are not aloud to just bring in another player who wasn't named in the original squad. Say in league if 5 players are injured, you can't bring in the '18th man' to make 13 on the field. Or basketball, you can't have an '11th man' to make 5 on the court if 6 get injured. This would force teams to make harder decisions on who just is fit, and who is not. It is also unfair on the batting side, if a batsman retires hurt, and can't go out to bat, it is not like the 12th man can come and act as a runner (not bat, like the substitute fielder, can't bowl) for the last 'not out' batsman is there? Yet the fielding side can field 11 players if a player is injured!

id go the opposite way and say if a player is injured the twelfth man should be allowed to bowl in his place, however i dont think should be allowed to bat....

 

[nookie_lk]

id go the opposite way and say if a player is injured the twelfth man should be allowed to bowl in his place, however i dont think should be allowed to bat....

why do u say they should only allow the 12th man to only bowl...why not bat ??

wont that not balance ?

 

[Simon]

well i think losing a bowler, ill use Simon Jones at the Gabba last time England toured here. They were then a bowler short for that bowling innings and it takes a big toll on them having the extra work load, however with batsman they knew they would be batting a man short and can then change their mindset knowing theres only 9 wickets to fall and not 10....

losing a bowler IMO can affect the result of a game, while i dont think losing a batsman would.....