um. Can I ease the tension by saying ARB is awesome?Excuse me?
Why?According to the Laws of Cricket, the number of balls of 1 over is 6 or 8.
In limited-over games -- 1 over 6 balls
In Tests -- 1 over 8 balls
What do you think?
Not an issue. The rule in that case would be, as it always has been, the position the rope is at, not if the ball actually physically hits the rope itself. Under the rope the grass is usually coloured differently or something so you can tell if the ball went over the boundary. So essentially the rope isn't the boundary, the boundary is just where the rope usually lies.Yeah agreed. However, it might seem a bit unfair if the fielder dives and pushes the rope further back before stopping it, by which point the ball has already rolled over where the rope would have been initially.
Would mean watching replays though, which the whole point of this new rule is to eliminate as much as possible. Also adds a bit of ambiguity which is a recipe for controversy. Could be solved by painting the boundary lines I guess.Change the number of balls per over to 3. This would effectively double the over-rates of teams which have been horrendous lately.
Not an issue. The rule in that case would be, as it always has been, the position the rope is at, not if the ball actually physically hits the rope itself. Under the rope the grass is usually coloured differently or something so you can tell if the ball went over the boundary. So essentially the rope isn't the boundary, the boundary is just where the rope usually lies.
By increasing the number of balls of 1 over from 6 to 8, the time of breaks between overs can be reduced.Why?
No it wouldn't. You can just as easily tell if the ball went over the line than if it hit the rope without needing a replay.Would mean watching replays though, which the whole point of this new rule is to eliminate as much as possible. Also adds a bit of ambiguity which is a recipe for controversy. Could be solved by painting the boundary lines I guess.
In most cases yeah, but not when there's a 150 pound grown man diving on top of itNo it wouldn't. You can just as easily tell if the ball went over the line than if it hit the rope without needing a replay.
So all those times where the fielder dives, moves the rope, waits for the ball to cross what he's just moved, and then fields it?Yeah agreed. However, it might seem a bit unfair if the fielder dives and pushes the rope further back before stopping it, by which point the ball has already rolled over where the rope would have been initially.
Which is the case for either set of rules so I don't see what you're getting at.In most cases yeah, but not when there's a 150 pound grown man diving on top of it
No I want to argue about thingsI agreed to the rule change ffs, leave me alone.
You line-mark the ground underneath where the boundary is set. Ball crosses that mark, it's four.In most cases yeah, but not when there's a 150 pound grown man diving on top of it
You line-mark the ground underneath where the boundary is set. Ball crosses that mark, it's four.
.Could be solved by painting the boundary lines I guess.
You need a point to argue with first ****.No I want to argue about things
Pretty sure they don't..They do that already . . . nothing needs "solving"