Potential changes to the laws of cricket

[PottedMustard]

Yes, I'm sure the national cricket board will instruct its side to throw a match in order to avoid a $50,000 fine for producing a drawn game. This is too hard. I will leave you to it.

 

[Johnners]

Yes, I'm sure the national cricket board will instruct its side to throw a match in order to avoid a $50,000 fine for producing a drawn game. This is too hard. I will leave you to it.

It's quite possible if money was involved, highly unlikely i agree, but quite possible. I would be suprised to find that if you asked people if players would throw matches before match fixing first reared it's ugly head, they would've most likely dismissed the idea, just like you have above.

In any case you've both times conveniently missed the main point of my argument, any reason for that?

 

[PottedMustard]

You come across as being vastly more interested in asserting yourself than discussing anything, so, all the best.

 

[Johnners]

You come across as being vastly more interested in asserting yourself than discussing anything, so, all the best.

I do apologise if my post came accross that way at all, i didn't mean it to.

I asked you the below to questions in a perfectly reasonable manner and you answered neither of them, instead you scoffed at a point i made.

So then you'd still be up for punishing the respective cricket boards because of drawns caused by phenominal performances by players from either team??? In effect you'd be handing out punishment for outstanding cricket performances. If you ask me, sometimes a draw is a fitting end to a test match where both teams have played incredibly well, yet at the end of the day cannot be seperated.

Would i be correct in saying that your main argument is that if say the pitch provided is an absolute road, and doens't provide a result, thats when the punishment should be handed out?

 

[PottedMustard]

Originally Posted by Clapo
So then you'd still be up for punishing the respective cricket boards because of drawns caused by phenominal performances by players from either team???

Yes. The phenomenal performances of which you speak would be even more so if they weren't constructed on flat decks

Would i be correct in saying that your main argument is that if say the pitch provided is an absolute road, and doens't provide a result, thats when the punishment should be handed out?

Yes

 

[Goughy]

Actually, to move the thread on a little - I've always had one law I wish was changed, that being when a ball is thrown in from a fieldsman, hits the stumps and then ricochets off in a different direction allowing the batsmen to take extra runs. I've always thought the ball should be declared dead when it hits the stumps, rather than punishing the fielding side by conceding more runs as the result of an accurate throw.

TBH, I dont have any issue with it. Its a dead ball if they hit the stumps and run the batsman out. Its only extra runs if the batsman is in his crease.

Basically, it rewards good decision making, ie throwing the stumps down only when the runout is on, and punishes bad decisions ie throwing the stumps down when the batsman is in his crease.

If you want to be constantly throwing the stumps down when there is no runout, you deserve all the extra runs you give away.

Im in favour of anything that rewards a good decision and punishes a bad one.

 

[Johnners]

Thank-you

The hardest thing about implementing such a law though is that it's extremely subjective, and i'd pity anyone who had to make such a decision on whether the draw was because of a flat deck, or because they teams really were inseperable. Also, if you were to fine someone because they've produced a road,you'd have to look at fining those who produce poor quality pitches (see 4th Test, India v Australia 2004) where the match is over inside two days because the pitch is simply unplayable for batsmen.

 

[James90]

In relation to lights, i'd love to see changes in relation to players going of due to bad light. I can understand that it's dangerous for batsmen with the faster men bowling during bad light, but i can't understand how it's a danger to the batsmens well-being if slow bowlers (i.e Spinners & Ashley Giles) are sending the ball down. I've heard it time and time again from past players that they think it's ridicudlous and i'd be inclined to agree with them.

To be fair that does happen. Umpires are generally more leniant if there's two spinners bowling for safety reasons but you can't have batsman facing a turning ball with poor visibility. Safety might be the main issue however you need a fair contest between bat and ball. I don't think there's much you can do to improve the light situation.

I do like the ball hitting the stumps idea. Of course it would only occur if it were off a fielder like in the case of a run out. If the striker smashed the ball into the stumps at the other end clean then of course they could still run on the ricochet.

 

[Goughy]

A rule change that has been mooted for a while is to do away with toss and give the away team the choice of batting first or second.

The idea being to prevent home teams doctoring tracks to suit them (ie SL would have to think of getting tracks that seam and imporve their quicks as Murali would never bowl in the 4th innings of a home test) and force good uniform pitches to be produced.

I can see the merit, but Im not convinced.

 

[James90]

The hardest thing about implementing such a law though is that it's extremely subjective, and i'd pity anyone who had to make such a decision on whether the draw was because of a flat deck, or because they teams really were inseperable. Also, if you were to fine someone because they've produced a road,you'd have to look at fining those who produce poor quality pitches (see 4th Test, India v Australia 2004) where the match is over inside two days because the pitch is simply unplayable for batsmen.

That pitch was an absolute minefield. Teams lose points in the CC for pitches like that so I don't see why they couldn't be fined. Roads are a bit harder and boards would always appeal it. How much does Cricket Australia actually control the pitches anyway? It's really just up to the curator. Although there must be something to discourage the roads produced in the India v Pakistan series earlier this year.

 

[Johnners]

TBH, I dont have any issue with it. Its a dead ball if they hit the stumps and run the batsman out. Its only extra runs if the batsman is in his crease.

Basically, it rewards good decision making, ie throwing the stumps down only when the runout is on, and punishes bad decisions ie throwing the stumps down when the batsman is in his crease.

If you want to be constantly throwing the stumps down wen there is no runout, you deserve all the extra runs you get.

Im in favour of anything that rewards a good decision and punishes a bad one.

The man makes a good point

 

[andyc]

Haha FFS guys, leave BLE alone.

 

[The Sean]

TBH, I dont have any issue with it. Its a dead ball if they hit the stumps and run the batsman out. Its only extra runs if the batsman is in his crease.

Basically, it rewards good decision making, ie throwing the stumps down only when the runout is on, and punishes bad decisions ie throwing the stumps down when the batsman is in his crease.

If you want to be constantly throwing the stumps down when there is no runout, you deserve all the extra runs you give away.

Im in favour of anything that rewards a good decision and punishes a bad one.

Mate, you make a fair point, and obviously throwing down the stumps with no chance of a run out is a poor decision, but I was talking more in terms of a throw from the outfield that's good enough to hit the stumps, or in particular a very close call where a run out is on and the batsman scrambles home by inches despite the direct hit. I don't think a good piece of fielding deserves to get punished. I see what you're saying though.

 

[Johnners]

To be fair that does happen. Umpires are generally more leniant if there's two spinners bowling for safety reasons but you can't have batsman facing a turning ball with poor visibility. Safety might be the main issue however you need a fair contest between bat and ball. I don't think there's much you can do to improve the light situation.

I do like the ball hitting the stumps idea. Of course it would only occur if it were off a fielder like in the case of a run out. If the striker smashed the ball into the stumps at the other end clean then of course they could still run on the ricochet.

The biggest change i'd like to see from the umpires in relation to the light situation is a willingness from them to stay out on the field for as long as possible, something which i don't beleive happens enough. Thats just me being picky though

 

[The Sean]

Thinking about this further - there would definitely be an issue with reversing the rule completely, as then there would be license to just tediously throw down the stumps all the time, which would benefit nobody. And of course there is no realistic scope for a "midway" rule that only declares the ball dead if the run out was on, because how do you definitively decide that?

Personally though, and this is just my feeling, I would rather have a rule that rewards good fielding and backs the players NOT to throw down the stumps indiscriminately just because they can, rather than maitaining a rule that allows a direct hit (as opposed to a mistake such as overthrows) to lead to further runs. It would however be a more significant change than I'd first envisaged, so your point about keeping things as they are is more than valid.

And anyway, I'm not sure we could trust most fielders not to just start having random pops at the stumps every over!

 

[howardj]

Scrap the leg-bye.

Why reward a batsman for missing the ball?

 

[albo97056]

definitely need to get rid of leg byes
A minimum field size needs implementing aswell, especially for tests.
And there should be a law against having the same colored kits in a series ( have home and away for gods sake!

How about getting rid of the tea break, its so pointless!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's about time the name "cricket" was changed. How can the world's greatest sport share it's name with an orthopterous insect of the Gryllidae family?

 

[albo97056]

lol,
on a serious note, powerplays need a name change!

 

[sideshowtim]

What an idiotic comment; yeah sure, we're getting hammered by Australia, but we reacked up some big runs last summer.

The fact that you are getting hammered by Australia and have had at least 1 horrible innings in every test makes it a quite accurate comment. England need to improve their batting. I think the only guy averaging over 50 is KP.