ODI rule changes

[shortpitched713]

Some sort of way to discourage bowlers from EVER bowling no-balls, however, is.

Well I'm assuming death is as good enough a deterrant as any other, hmm..?

 

[shortpitched713]

Ummm... no. Sorry to dismiss your idea like that, but no.

Well a reason might be nice. Might also spark discussion in this place we call a cricket forum, so I'd be all for that.

 

[Richard]

Well I did try giving a reason, maybe he thought I'd said it all?

(That reason being "too innovative", BTW)

 

[irfan]

Too innovative ?? Seems like a backhanded compliment, Rich.

I don't see how the umpires would find this rule change any more complicated than adjucating an LBW appeal, sure they may have to move two counters from one hand to the other from time to time, and distinguishing between a swing and a miss and a play and miss shouldn't be too difficult.

You seem very knowledgeable about cricket so care to expand ??

 

[Richard]

Haha, I just think that meddling with the balls per over, never mind within the course of the over, is a bit too "clever", if you like. As with the Supersubs - I didn't like the idea of changing the participants in the match within the course of the match - and TBH, the impression I got was that most people felt the same way - 11 against 11 is the way it's always been.

I mean, I'm not saying the aim is a bad one, certainly not, but I do think there are better ways to achieve it, and I don't think changes which require major amendments to the Laws (which that one would, when you think about it) are really adviseable.

 

[Matt79]

On the back of Kasprowicz suggesting that batsman should take off one bit of protective gear (of the bowler's choice) every time they swing and miss, I have a slightly more practical proposal.

What if.... a batsman swings (blatant) and misses as opposed to plays and misses then the bowler has to bowl one less ball in the over. So, essentially, the next ball is a dot ball.

If the ball happens to be the last ball of the over, then in his next over he has to bowl only 5 legal deliveries in his next over. However, if the batsman swings and misses on the final ball of a bowler's spell then this rule would be considered void.

Increasingly, ODI cricket is becoming more about the runs and balls equation rather than wickets in hand, as more teams bat deeper than ever before. So reducing the number of deliveries makes the batsman more selective in his shot-making process instead of try to needlessly trying to slog everything. If the batsman makes contact, good and well, but if he doesn't he should be docked a ball.

However, if a batsman plays a defensive shot and misses then there should be no penalty. It shall be up to the umpires to adjucate whether the batsman swings and misses or plays and misses.

Thougts ??

I think that's a poor idea for a couple of reasons - first, its unlikely to have a major impact when good batsmen are in - how often do you see specialist international batsmen have a completely off fresh-air shot? Given the way most teams have good batsmen down to 8 these days, that means that the rule change wouldn't produce much change in the game.

Second, and more seriously, the people it would be likely to have a major impact on are tail-enders who are attempting to go the slog. If they're doing that, its a fair bet that their team is in quite a bit of trouble, but that they think the game can still be saved. If you have a situation like that, why would you want to artificially alter it? Its already interesting. Unduly penalising the tail-enders in that case would simply kill off what contest would remain in that particular scenario.

Third, it seems unfair to penalise bowlers for producing a delivery that beats a batsman all-ends-up. Psychological victory and dot-ball aside, a swing-and-a-miss is not what the bowler would want to achieve, they'd prefer to take a wicket. If they have a batsman in such trouble that they're wildly swinging and missing, they'd surely have to be a bigger than normal chance to take a wicket in the remainder of the over. I'd be pissed if I was a bowler who was told I'd have one less delivery at a batsman who'd I'd just beaten.

Fourth - practicalities. What happens if the swing-and-miss happens on the last ball of the over? What if it happens on the last ball of a bowler's tenth over? Do the umpires take it off the start of the next over, in which the other batsman would now be on strike?

 

[Richard]

how often do you see specialist international batsmen have a completely off fresh-air shot?

Pretty often, TBH. Especially in a one-day game.

Third, it seems unfair to penalise bowlers for producing a delivery that beats a batsman all-ends-up. Psychological victory and dot-ball aside, a swing-and-a-miss is not what the bowler would want to achieve, they'd prefer to take a wicket. If they have a batsman in such trouble that they're wildly swinging and missing, they'd surely have to be a bigger than normal chance to take a wicket in the remainder of the over. I'd be pissed if I was a bowler who was told I'd have one less delivery at a batsman who'd I'd just beaten.

In a one-day game less runs, not more wickets, are what counts. Fewer balls = better for the bowler \ bowling side, full-stop.

 

[Fiery]

Because - rightly IMO, after 200 years or so of nonsense - a wide (and no-ball) counts for 1 run plus anything scored. If you had a wide only counting if the ball was a dot-ball it'd defy the point of running a single on a wide.

And you can't have it two ways.

IMO the rule's right - even if it took 200 years to get it so.

I was only talking about when a wide goes to the boundary

 

[Richard]

But you can't differentiate between boundary-run-scoring and non-boundary run-scoring.

Once you have one, it has to be all-inclusive.

 

[Fiery]

But you can't differentiate between boundary-run-scoring and non-boundary run-scoring.

Once you have one, it has to be all-inclusive.

I guess that's a good point. 5 still seems too harsh to me.

 

[Richard]

I love little more than watching a rubbish bowler sling one down the leg and shouting "WOOOOAAAHHHH, five wides!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[irfan]

I think that's a poor idea for a couple of reasons - first, its unlikely to have a major impact when good batsmen are in - how often do you see specialist international batsmen have a completely off fresh-air shot? Given the way most teams have good batsmen down to 8 these days, that means that the rule change wouldn't produce much change in the game.

Second, and more seriously, the people it would be likely to have a major impact on are tail-enders who are attempting to go the slog. If they're doing that, its a fair bet that their team is in quite a bit of trouble, but that they think the game can still be saved. If you have a situation like that, why would you want to artificially alter it? Its already interesting. Unduly penalising the tail-enders in that case would simply kill off what contest would remain in that particular scenario.

Third, it seems unfair to penalise bowlers for producing a delivery that beats a batsman all-ends-up. Psychological victory and dot-ball aside, a swing-and-a-miss is not what the bowler would want to achieve, they'd prefer to take a wicket. If they have a batsman in such trouble that they're wildly swinging and missing, they'd surely have to be a bigger than normal chance to take a wicket in the remainder of the over. I'd be pissed if I was a bowler who was told I'd have one less delivery at a batsman who'd I'd just beaten.

Fourth - practicalities. What happens if the swing-and-miss happens on the last ball of the over? What if it happens on the last ball of a bowler's tenth over? Do the umpires take it off the start of the next over, in which the other batsman would now be on strike?[/QUOTE]

All the bold highlighted points are addressed
1. The idea is that it's meant to be a subtle change to the ODI game that will gain importance in the early and late overs of standard ODI innings.

2. It encourages tail enders to be more creative and innovative when they come out to bat, rather than go out for a traditional slog and hope they connect - see Mark Gillespie's innings for instance - true he was very lucky with a couple of french cuts but he rarely resorted to fresh-aired swipes and still got a SR over 200.

3. Yes, I'll give that to you - that's an obvious drawback as bowlers might think they have a greater chance of obtaining the batsman's wicket

4. Swing and miss last ball of over - one less ball in the bowler's next over
Swing and miss last ball of spell - Nothing happens - rule doesn't come into effect

 

[Richard]

Mate, you got that final [/b] one character too late!!!!!! And hence the quote ****ed-up!

 

[marc71178]

I love little more than watching a rubbish bowler sling one down the leg and shouting "WOOOOAAAHHHH, five wides!!!!!!!!!!"

That figures.

Don't watch it for fantastic batsmanship, great battles between ball and bat where pressure is building.

No it's got to be them "5 wides"

 

[Richard]

I was kinda exaggerating...

I do much prefer seeing bad bowling being hit, rather than wides.

And if the bowling's good... it don't often get hit.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Well a reason might be nice. Might also spark discussion in this place we call a cricket forum, so I'd be all for that.

Alright, fair enough. Tbh I thought the idea was obviously too silly but anyway.

IMO, meddling with something like the balls per over is altering a very fundamental aspect of cricket. Like Richard mentioned, supersubs altered the basic 11 vs 11 dynamic, I feel this is similar. There's a danger whereby the game could be meddled with too much and end up a parody of itself, which I feel Cricket Max was.

 

[vic_orthdox]

2. It encourages tail enders to be more creative and innovative when they come out to bat, rather than go out for a traditional slog and hope they connect - see Mark Gillespie's innings for instance - true he was very lucky with a couple of french cuts but he rarely resorted to fresh-aired swipes and still got a SR over 200.

Using similar logic, anyone who bats in the top order has to use a tennis ball if required to bowl.

Why try and make something harder for the people who aren't specialists in that field anyway?

 

[irfan]

Using similar logic, anyone who bats in the top order has to use a tennis ball if required to bowl.

Why try and make something harder for the people who aren't specialists in that field anyway?

Maybe because it will help them improve in that department that they may not be good at. Less Murali-like tailenders is a good thing.