There can be many reasons for delays but the intent by the fielding side is reduce the number of overs faced by the batsmen to the minimum to reduce the possibility of scoring runs. This has become so ingrained that people think it is the nature of the game.
If cricket is an entertainment ala 20/20 or ODIs, the crowd is guanteed a specific amount of action why is not the same reasoning applied to test matches ?
While I hate to alter the traditions of the game by applying run penalties it would be worth a try, say at 6 runs an over after the six hours play.( as well as continuing to bowl the required overs, ie a double penalty)
The problem with extending the hours of play to fit he overs in, is TV runs to time schedules and the need for extra pay to ground staff at test venues and it doesn't speed up the over rate, it was tried in the past that is now why there is only an extra 1/2 hour allowed. At one stage play would continue until the required overs were bowled and it was taking up to 1 1/2 hours extra.
As pointed out, it was able to be done in the past and is done at lower levels of the game so it is blight which needs to be removed.
I lkie watching cricket so I thinlk the minmum should be 100 overs . Has all the improvements in the game only made it worse, by slowing it down ?
Thanks for all the responses ( including those from people not interested in the topic but wanted to post anyway
)