Improvements that need to be made in cricket

[cnerd123]

And my thread was locked because it encouraged volatile arguments....I see.

Right, I'm done trolling the troll, soz.


Genuine improvements in cricket? Boundary ropes should be removed, make the batsman clear the fences for a six. You should be allowed to bowl 2 bouncers in an over maximum, not just one. Wides in ODIs are wayy too harsh.

 

[Noble One]

Genuine improvements in cricket? Boundary ropes should be removed, make the batsman clear the fences for a six. You should be allowed to bowl 2 bouncers in an over maximum, not just one. Wides in ODIs are wayy too harsh.

I don't agree with the idea of complete removal of boundary ropes. It grinds my cricketing gears that larger grounds are roped off a good 10-15 metres from the fence, but little harm is done by roping 2-3 metres in from the fence.

The game has changed so much in the past ten years in that cricketers are so aggressive at chasing deliveries right to the boundary. I believe it is one of the most thrilling sights in the modern game the chase between fielder and ball right to the rope. The aggression shown now never used to exist with most fielders bailing out before reaching a collision with the fence, or suffering a Brad Young style injury.

 

[cnerd123]

My issue with ropes is that it's silly when the ball lands on the rop, or the fielder dives to stop the ball but just touches the ropes, and the ball boys after the ropes who always seem to get in the way or get hit by the ball...

That reminds me. Fielders stopping a ball but the batsmen still being given a four just because the fielder was in contact with the rope. Very annoying.

2-3 feet away from the fence is alright I guess. Prefer not to have ropes tho. Let the fielders crash into the fence as long as they stop the ball, don't give it a 4 because the fielder was in contact with the ball and the fence simultaneously. The ball has to hit the fence for a four, and clear the fence for a six. Heck, let the fielder climb the fence to catch the ball if he has too

It'll go some way towards addressing the balance.

 

[Spark]

Fielders stopping a ball but the batsmen still being given a four just because the fielder was in contact with the rope. Very annoying.

Yeah I agree. A good piece of fielding becomes worthless if the corner of your shoe is touching the rope. It's silly - if it goes onto the rope/line then it's four, if it doesn't, it isn't. That's the way it should be IMO.

 

[Noble One]

Yeah I agree. A good piece of fielding becomes worthless if the corner of your shoe is touching the rope. It's silly - if it goes onto the rope/line then it's four, if it doesn't, it isn't. That's the way it should be IMO.

What about when the fielder pushes the rope back in the motion of the slide? Is it fair that both ball and fielder may cross the normal position of the rope, and the batsman isn't rewarded with a boundary?

It becomes a very grey area. I don't mind the current rule, it does hold the game up once or twice an innings whilst they check with the third umpire, but the rule remains clear.

 

[cnerd123]

I think the fielder should be rewarder either way, for throwing himself around and putting himself in harms way.


Hence I say the fence. If your willing to chase the ball and throw youself into a fence/series of adboards just to save a couple of runs, you deserve it.

 

[Spark]

What about when the fielder pushes the rope back in the motion of the slide? Is it fair that both ball and fielder may cross the normal position of the rope, and the batsman isn't rewarded with a boundary?

It becomes a very grey area. I don't mind the current rule, it does hold the game up once or twice an innings whilst they check with the third umpire, but the rule remains clear.

There's a line underneath the rope, and if it touches the line then it's still four.

I don't think it should be the fence though. Throwing yourself around is one thing, but risking a nasty injury is quite another. It'd just mean people stopped trying to dive around to save fours, which would be a shame.

 

[Jono]

Or Jono's penis.

Hoe

 

[Nate]

No it isn't.

Quesitonable camera angels could bring an end to cricket,and mankind in general.

I do not wish to rellocate to Mars.

 

[Burgey]

The ball itself should have to cross or touch the rope. Never mind if the fielder is touching the rope but the ball is in the field of play.