I get it, but this type of thinking keeps happening here far too much and it does confuse me how overly twisted the logic can get. I have no problems with time/session/innings limits for when subs can be allowed and I don't think this would be that unpopular of an idea for such a rule.
-
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 stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread
- Thread starter Daemon
- Start date
SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
The Ultimate Test, featuring Subs
Vs Kyear?
SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
Bdsm
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
hypotheticals are essential to, even the basis of, the process of sounding out whether an idea is good or not. Children learn this (even your "5 year old with no oversight")
"Worst case scenario" simulating is also a standard practice
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Again, this is for injuries that happen during the game, for which the definition is already set.
It's also relatively easy to resolve, even with the currently lax protocols on how people can run off and on the field whenever they feel it's necessary.
People do enjoy it.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
yeah m8 everyone knows this is about injuries that happen during a game. Picking generally unfit or less than fully fit players is very relevant because you're more likely to do it if you know you can replace them if they break down
limiting it to "external" injuries alone mitigates this a lot, but this has become more of a general discussion re. injury replacements
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Because teams would be dumb if they didn't try and bend the rules to get an advantage, it's why McCullum-led teams like to do the change the ball trick.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Its interesting that the whole "Fake injuries" thing that you keep referring to has almost never happened. Yet you feel it can keep repeated ad nauseum to make a point that no one is talking about here and yet lecture that others should move on?
Try making an actual point before telling others what they should be doing.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
But with the concussion sub protocols now dictating some kind of ICC doctor or at least ICC official being there to adjudicate, dont you think there is more upside to ensuring players dont play with injuries?
As I said earlier, every rule gets taken advantage of, doesn't mean you stop making rules.
Arachnödouche2.0
State Vice-Captain
Allow subs but only like-for-like skillsets. Almost all of the time the sub coming in will be a lesser player to not have been picked in the initial XI so that should quell any complaints abt gaming the system.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yep and this is done already when players are listed in team sheets within 5 skillsets and 5 subs are already nominated. This is part of the new rules. I understand this is something that will be shared with the other side and they have to agree as well.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think concussions are a separate thing here because you don't want guys dying on the pitch, but I do think there is some merit to the argument that test players should be able to last 5 days.
Naturally I think my PATENTED proposal earlier in the thread is the best solution.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
See, to put it simply, I am talking about a sub for injuries such as the one Steve Waugh and Gillespie from that collision, than the injury Steve Waugh had going into the test at Oval in 2001. The former is an external injury and gets a sub, the latter is not an exteral injury and therefore, wont get a sub. This definition, and the concussion sub protocol all makes this rule as difficult as possible to abuse.
Not to say teams wont find a way, but I think the intention is good and it has to be implemented. Cant ever implement a rule if you want it to be something that can 100% be unabusable.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think you could make an argument that it might reduce the instances of starting players coming into the game with slight niggles, which could conceivably be better for player welfare.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
To be honest though I'm a psychopath so if I was coach I would definitely find ways to game the system, including hiring Moe Szyslak with a crowbar.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It has happened in other sports and perhaps it hasn't happened in cricket as the opportunities are much tighter. There have definitely been games in the past where the use of a runner was somewhat dubious.
Bloodgate is probably the most infamous example I can think of off the top of my head, from rugby union.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's no need to be so aggressive and rude, it doesn't help your point and is just a poor Xix impression (he does it better)
This is a hypothetical discussion about a rule that hasn't been utilised yet. "It has almost never happened" is not a valid argument to shut down a discussion.
If you don't like a discussion you don't have to be a part of it. You're not the one who gets to set the parameters of what people are allowed to talk about, and no one is making you unnecessarily repeat yourself trying to enforce your rules, you're choosing to do that yourself.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I see TJB is now at the "lets get into personal attacks coz I never had a point" phase of the argument. Sad as usual. 