• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricket rules : what should be in and out

Linda

International Vice-Captain
Son Of Coco said:
I think that a rule should be introduced whereby if a batsman hits a 6 and it's caught by someone in the crowd they are out, and the person who caught it gets to come down onto the field and bat in their place.....

also,

If a batsman hits it out of the ground, he has to go and look for it and is only allowed to resume his innings at the fall of the next wicket after the ball has been found. In cases where the ball isn't found, the batsman is banned for life. :mellow:
In this case, Ponting wouldve been banned years ago..
(Suddenly the Indians want this rule enforced...)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think there are plenty of people who wouldn't mind that rule enforced against Ponting.
Maybe every team to play against him in the last 2 years, 11 months and 24 days...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
cbuts said:
in nz most grounds double as cricket and rugby so therefor uaint gonna get big huge fields. i dont know aobut eh english fields but surely there is standards that they have to be up to
Derby, The Oval, Lord's - all excellent beacons of example.
Taunton - woefully sub-par, not good enough for First-Class-cricket.
New Zealand's grounds ain't great, but they're nowhere near this poor.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Richard said:
Taunton - woefully sub-par, not good enough for First-Class-cricket.
Thats a bit rich.. Its the best batting stip in the country, even if you take away the small outfield.. And it isnt "woefully sub-par".. Just small...

Its better suited for cricket than some of the shocking test pitches of old (Headingley), or the bobbly outfields of the Caribbean..
 

Swervy

International Captain
Langeveldt said:
Thats a bit rich.. Its the best batting stip in the country, even if you take away the small outfield.. And it isnt "woefully sub-par".. Just small...

Its better suited for cricket than some of the shocking test pitches of old (Headingley), or the bobbly outfields of the Caribbean..
yeah I have no problem whatso ever with smaller grounds..it maybe easier to hit 6's, but building innings with singles and two's is that bit harder, evens itself out in the end...and its the same for both teams
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Langeveldt said:
Thats a bit rich.. Its the best batting stip in the country, even if you take away the small outfield.. And it isnt "woefully sub-par".. Just small...

Its better suited for cricket than some of the shocking test pitches of old (Headingley), or the bobbly outfields of the Caribbean..
You see I reckon the batting prowess of the strip is overrated because of the size of the ground.
It's good, sure, but IMO The Oval for one is better.
There's nothing wrong with a good batting pitch, but there is wrong in a perfectly decent ball being blocked, timed, missing the fielder and going for four.
That's how the standard of cricket falls.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
yeah I have no problem whatso ever with smaller grounds..it maybe easier to hit 6's, but building innings with singles and two's is that bit harder, evens itself out in the end...and its the same for both teams
It's easier to hit fours and sixes, so building an innings becomes less important, and you get rubbish batters like Ian Blackwell being championed.
You also get good bowlers going for runs they shouldn't be going for.
 

Linda

International Vice-Captain
Richard said:
I think there are plenty of people who wouldn't mind that rule enforced against Ponting.
Maybe every team to play against him in the last 2 years, 11 months and 24 days...
Well sure, but I was mainly referring to the WC final... :)
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
Richard said:
It's easier to hit fours and sixes, so building an innings becomes less important, and you get rubbish batters like Ian Blackwell being championed.
You also get good bowlers going for runs they shouldn't be going for.
I heard that Blackwell played a good, mature and intelligent knock of 98 against Glamorgan in his latest first class match at Taunton. :cool:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I've heard that a few times.
He's yet to improve his one-day batting and somehow I can't see him being selected for Tests.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Jnr. said:
I heard that Blackwell played a good, mature and intelligent knock of 98 against Glamorgan in his latest first class match at Taunton. :cool:
Yes, it was a superb knock...

Just because he cannot convert the runs he scores at the County Ground into international runs, doesnt mean he is a "Rubbish Batter" Richard.. I suppose Hick's 405 was rubbish and a waste of time because the boundaries are a couple of metres shorter (don't forget they don't use a rope and use all the available grass)
 

Swervy

International Captain
Langeveldt said:
Oh

Lets get rid of the leg bye.. Its so simple.. Why should a bowler be penalised when they have beaten the bat??
bowlers arent penalised for leg byes, but I do see the reasoning behind getting rid of leg byes...however, would that just encourage really negative bowling
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Swervy said:
bowlers arent penalised for leg byes, but I do see the reasoning behind getting rid of leg byes...however, would that just encourage really negative bowling
Not really.. A batsman cannot run when they pad a ball away (due to negative bowling) because they haven't usually played a shot...
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
bowlers arent penalised for leg byes, but I do see the reasoning behind getting rid of leg byes...however, would that just encourage really negative bowling
If it did encourage negative bowling, batsmen would be forced to find new ways of scoring(or the matches would all die and become boring draws)
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you got rid of leg byes, then you would have to get rid of the LBW law altogether.

It would make no sense to get rid of the benefit for the batsman (ie getting off strike) and keeping the disadvantage of getting out. I think the leg bye should stay.
 

Simon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Langeveldt said:
So who here has caught something??

Ive dropped Ian Harvey (i think) at very deep long off.. It was Annas catch tho, shame she chickened out..
I dropped Greg Blewett at deep long on in a MMC game once, was worth $100 too :(

that was the Canberra Comets first ever game and Blewy made 97 that day, not a bad dig ;)
 

Top