• 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

nookie_lk

First Class Debutant
Cricket has many rules and some agree on them and some dont. What rules do u think that cricket should get rid of or impliment or even change ???
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Cricket's rules have been changed time and again and will doubtless be subject to major introspection throughout all the time we are lucky enough for the game to exist.
Most revisions are minor, to cover previous fuzzy edges brought about by changes in small things.
 

Linda

International Vice-Captain
A rule set in concrete about punishment of slow over rates.
If theres one thing I hate, its slow over rates.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Linda said:
A rule set in concrete about punishment of slow over rates.
If theres one thing I hate, its slow over rates.
It is extremely hard to penalise teams for slow over rates, there are so many things that come into it. The system they have at the moment is ok AFAIC.
 

Waughney

International Debutant
I am not sure if it still is like this but before if the side bowling first had a slow over rate then they would have reduced overs + a fine. But if the side bowling second had a slow over rate they would only get a fine. Quite a fair disadvantage to the side bowling first. Again I am not sure if it's still like this.
 

Waughney

International Debutant
Well that's definitely something they should straighten out. I've read a lot about players complaining about this in tour diaries....
 

Craig

World Traveller
I would restrict the use of the 3rd umpire, and only use it for stumpings, and run outs.
 

delkap

State Vice-Captain
Waughney said:
I am not sure if it still is like this but before if the side bowling first had a slow over rate then they would have reduced overs + a fine. But if the side bowling second had a slow over rate they would only get a fine. Quite a fair disadvantage to the side bowling first. Again I am not sure if it's still like this.
You are right in being unsure..
This used to be the case earlier..

Now its a uniform fine for whichever team bowls slow... No runs or overs are taken out..
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
I know its pedantic but I would rather get rid of the boundary rope and have a painted white line...

Im fed up with "oh lets look for 2 minutes while we try and work out if his foot was in contact with the rope when his hands were touching the ball", yet they cannot wait on a more important decision like an LBW one...
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
The technology exists whereby those boundary decisions will be correct from looking at TV replays.

It does not exist to be 100% (or even close to that) on LBW's.
 

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
I would like a dead ball to be called after a direct hit has broken the stumps. I don't think it's fair that the fielding team should be penalised for good fielding. When that happens you can get weird deflections that the player backing up can't cut off.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, I definately agree with that.
I also think there should be something in the rules about the ball hitting the batsman, rather than it just being down to the batsmen not running.
I mean, what if you need 2 to win the World Cup final and the ball hits you having completed a single, then goes into open space nowhere near any of the fielders?
And of course there is the problem of it hitting the batsman then going to the boundary.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Craig said:
I would restrict the use of the 3rd umpire, and only use it for stumpings, and run outs.
I would certainly change some of the third-Umpire stuff, but really that's not exclusively down to Rules, it's more in the "should the technology use be altered?"
Like the no-ball thing.
That's one of the first things I'd change, the calling of no-balls.
 

Mr. P

International Vice-Captain
IMO the 3rd Umpire is excellent in its current form. BUT it cannot go any further. LBWs judged by 3rd ump would be terrible.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Well unless it was very difficult, you will find most umpires won't go upstairs as they will back themselves to get make correct decision.
 

Timewell

U19 Debutant
A bit of a harsh ruling but it serves the side right. How about, the side following-on have to keep the batsman which was Not Out...out in the middle - he therefore opens the innings. Would be pretty decent to see if tailenders could ever get any runs...
 

Revelation

U19 Debutant
IN: Batsmen allowed to appeal to the 3rd Ump for a decision that may be wrong. Can be regulated by say allowing a batsman 3 appeals per innings.
 

Top