If you could change one law/rule in Test cricket?

[silentstriker]

It could be anything with regards to Test cricket - not in terms of the international structure but the game itself. No ball rule? Reinstate the sub? Reviews?

I was thinking, with the Test thats going on now, if mandating the follow on might not be more interesting. I don't think I would quite support it, but I think it would lead to more exciting cricket.

 

[Son Of Coco]

In before someone makes the insane suggestion that we get rid of the law that states you can't be out LBW to a ball that pitches outside leg.

 

[sunilz]

It could be anything with regards to Test cricket - not in terms of the international structure but the game itself. No ball rule? Reinstate the sub? Reviews?

I was thinking, with the Test thats going on now, if mandating the follow on might not be more interesting. I don't think I would quite support it, but I think it would lead to more exciting cricket.

Teams should be allowed to change their composition after Toss.

For example if you are batting 1st on a bowling friendly pitch , then you should be allowed to substitute a batsman for bowler or allrounder

 

[silentstriker]

I would personally favor getting rid of the coin toss and the visiting side always being able to choose whether to bat or bowl.

 

[Daemon]

No more leg byes

 

[honestbharani]

Teams should be allowed to change their composition after Toss.

For example if you are batting 1st on a bowling friendly pitch , then you should be allowed to substitute a batsman for bowler or allrounder

Yeah announce ur 12 before the toss but select the 11 after the toss. I will be onboard with this. Taking away toss itself seems too radical for a game that cant work out how to make up lost overs and when to shorten breaks.

 

[Gob]

Addition - having the chance to double the score after 30 overs only if you are 3 down or less in ODIs

 

[Shady Slim]

Addition - having the chance to double the score after 30 overs only if you are 3 down or less in ODIs

think they should just sim all of the ODIs except for the wc tbhwy

 

[karan_fromthestands]

It could be anything with regards to Test cricket - not in terms of the international structure but the game itself. No ball rule? Reinstate the sub? Reviews?

I was thinking, with the Test thats going on now, if mandating the follow on might not be more interesting. I don't think I would quite support it, but I think it would lead to more exciting cricket.

No field restrictions in test cricket, place the players wherever the hell you want and have a go at it. I feel we will see a different kind of evolution in batting styles and bowling tactics if this is done.

 

[Chubb]

One hand one bounce.

 

[Starfighter]

Bring back the double bouncing ball.

 

[Shady Slim]

as someone who himself plays a lot of reverse sweeps the answer is reverse sweepers lose legside protection from the leg before

 

[tony p]

If you catch the ball "IN THE FIELD OF PLAY", you are OUT, even if you go over the rope, as long as you have controlled it at the time of going over and haven't juggled it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The LBW rule where a batter can't be given out if he's struck outside the line of off if he's attempting to play a shot.

Not only does it require the umpire to psychoanalise a batter's intention whilst also calculating the path of the ball, but we've all see the old "stretching forward with the bat tucked behind the pad in a not even quarterly-convincing facsimile of a forward defensive" fiction which umpires seem to be somehow fooled by everytime.

If the ball's going on to hit the stumps and it's hasn't pitched outside leg it shouldn't matter if a batter is attempting (or badly feigning an attempt) to play a shot.

 

[Starfighter]

but we've all see the old "stretching forward with the bat tucked behind the pad in a not even quarterly-convincing facsimile of a forward defensive" fiction which umpires seem to be somehow fooled by everytime.

I hate this one.

 

[srbhkshk]

I was thinking, with the Test thats going on now, if mandating the follow on might not be more interesting. I don't think I would quite support it, but I think it would lead to more exciting cricket.

It's fine for situations like the current test, but it will absolutely destroy the bowlers in 500 play 300 kind of test.

 

[The Sean]

It has always annoyed me more than it should that a direct hit on the stumps which deflects awkwardly back out into the field allows the batsman to make additional runs - it just feels like it's punishing good fielding.

 

[Howe_zat]

I would personally favor getting rid of the coin toss and the visiting side always being able to choose whether to

They tried this in county cricket and it just resulted in flat pitches and more draws really.

 

[Starfighter]

I was thinking, with the Test thats going on now, if mandating the follow on might not be more interesting. I don't think I would quite support it, but I think it would lead to more exciting cricket.

The follow on was mandatory before 1900 and now is not. I can imagine there is a reason or that.

 

[silentstriker]

They tried this in county cricket and it just resulted in flat pitches and more draws really.

Interesting. I don’t know anything about the points system - is there something about that?