Rules that need to change

[adharcric]

I actually agree with Top_Cat. Sure, you can think of many rules which might be unfair in bizarre situations, but why legislate so much? Some of these suggested legislations, like the no-ball change, make sense. But consider the idea of calling play dead upon a deflection following a throw at the stumps ... what if there's a fielder for back-up but the ball passes him 1 foot to his left? 3 feet? 5 feet? A distinction will have to be made between poor fielding and an unfortunate deflection. This will really make the game annoying. With the game on the line though, as SJS said, it might be worth it. We can point out rules for the sake of pointing them out, but not every single potentially flawed rule should be changed without considering the 'annoying' and 'tedious' factor it would bring into the game.

 

[cpr]

One that always irks me is when a batsman plays a 'shot' to a spinner just outside of off-stump and it ever so accidently hits his pads.... you know what i mean. Its a bit like diving in football, simulating play to cover the fact you've been had

If the balls gonna hit the stumps and hits the pad, regardless of where it pitches, i reckon it should be given out. Now with balls pitching outside the line of the stumps, its upto the umpire to judge, and he'll probably be in doubt so give not out. They'll miss some, they'll make some great calls. We'll all cry about it at some point. But its still fairer than it automatically being not out

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't think fielders should be allowed to almost wear a suit of armour and stand intimidatingly close to the batsman. They should only be allowed to stand as close as they feel they dare with only minimal protection.

 

[luckyeddie]

So it's the backing-up fielder's fault if the ball deflects off at a 90 degree angle? I don't think so...

I agree with mundaneyogi - players aren't rewarded for good cricket in that instance.

The batsmen are - and surely it was good judgement of the circumstances (and therefore from their perspective good cricket) that allowed them to safely get home?

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't think fielders should be allowed to almost wear a suit of armour and stand intimidatingly close to the batsman. They should only be allowed to stand as close as they feel they dare with only minimal protection.

A condom?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A condom?

Certainly in women's cricket it would be a good rule change if the umpires were obliged to give them out if they're ugly.

 

[adharcric]

Certainly in women's cricket it would be a good rule change if the umpires were obliged to give them out if they're ugly.

...

 

[Pedro Delgado]

How about the rule that states that Dion Nash hit a four and not a six at Brisbane vs Sth Africa all those years ago. That was a crock. It hit the back rope!!!!

I'll add: The arcane rule that allowed Neil Fairbrother to claim a catch whilst standing on the rope.



I'm not bitter, I'm sooooo over it already.

 

[marc71178]

Something about over-rates.

In OD games if the 50 aren't bowled by the cut off, you finish the overs then only receive that many when you bat.

If you're bowling second, you lose the last few overs off your score if you don't get them in in time.

 

[Dasa]

Bring back the unlimited bouncer rule - more the merrier I say. Umpire still has discretion to penalise bowlers for intimidatory bowling, time wasting, etc.

Allow dismissals for obstructing the field if a batsman deliberatley alters course to protect the stumps when in danger of being run out.

Do away with the lbw law that states that you cant be out if struck outside the line of off stump if playing a shot. Umpire has enough to worry about without worrying whether the batsman got 1 mm outside off.

I like those ideas. Particularly the 2nd one...it really annoys me to see batsmen doing that.

 

[cpr]

Something about over-rates.

In OD games if the 50 aren't bowled by the cut off, you finish the overs then only receive that many when you bat.

If you're bowling second, you lose the last few overs off your score if you don't get them in in time.

Very fair argument. But say a team had a fast start to the innings, but a slow finish (mebbie last couple of tail-enders trying to bat out the overs), they then restrict the opposition early on without getting many wickets, leaving a couple of decent middle order batsmen on a tough but managable run chase.... a deliberate go slow is more likely to be an advantage rather than a hinderance.

Mebbie losing their best scoring overs would be a better penalty for those not bowling to speed

 

[luckyeddie]

Certainly in women's cricket it would be a good rule change if the umpires were obliged to give them out if they're ugly.

I'm saying nothing on the grounds that we have plenty of ladies contribute to Cricket Web, and they do a valuable job.

<quack> Making the teas

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

- An extra fielder (making it three) should be allowed behind the popping crease line on the leg side instead of two as of today. This must be tried at least on an experimental basis for a year in first class cricket to see the effect.

Wasn't that rule brought in in the first place to stop negative leg theory bowling?

 

[luckyeddie]

I'll add: The arcane rule that allowed Neil Fairbrother to claim a catch whilst standing on the rope.



I'm not bitter, I'm sooooo over it already.

Neil Unfairbrother, Brad Cheaty-Hodge - two men (barely), one mission (beat Derbyshire), no morals.

 

[greg]

It is rarely the case that the fielder hits the stumps and the batsman get extra runs and it is an example of "good cricket". In the vast majority of cases it is the result of the fielder throwing in the ball unnecessarily.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Neil Unfairbrother, Brad Cheaty-Hodge - two men (barely), one mission (beat Derbyshire), no morals.

We'd have taken sweet revenge a few years later if we hadn't been caught on one of the stickiest wickets ever seen at Lord's.

Lancs = well, it begins with "c".

/whinge

 

[Dick Rockett]

There are many other instances in cricket where good cricket isn't rewarded, y'know.

Our friend probably worded his response wrong. It's not that good cricket isn't being rewarded, it's that good cricket is being penalised.

Anyway, how would one legislate against such a thing? Prevent the batsmen from running after the ball has hit the stumps? Why? Sure a batsman may get a run but they have to weigh up the risk of getting run-out attempting that run too. Anyway, how often does this sort of thing happen where a ball flies off and goes for four?

Legislation would be simple - once the ball has hit the stumps off a throw, it's dead. No more runs allowed. Also, I never said anything in the initial post about deflections going for four - that is rare. However, in my experience it's a common occurence to see an extra single or two taken off a deflection.

Of course you can. It's on very rare occasions where a ball ricochets off so far that back-up fielders don't have it covered.

Once again, I'll have to disagree. The backup guy is usually 10 meters away, with another guy 10 metres behind him. If a ball deflects at 90 degrees, it's pretty much impossible to avoid giving away extra runs.

 

[Dick Rockett]

This is probabaly debatable but when a fielder goes to stop the ball going for four runs and part of his body is touching the rope whilest he has the ball in hand. Don't particulary agree with the rule since the ball didn't legitmately cross the rope.

Oh yeah! I forgot that one. For mine, if the ball doesn't reach the rope, it shouldn't be four, regardless of whether the fielder touched the rope of not - I mean, the ball hasn't covered the full distance to the boundary has it?

Perhaps it should stay the way it is for sixes though - otherwise there will be endless pointless debate about whether or not the ball has passed a spot in the air that's directly above the rope/line.

 

[adharcric]

Oh yeah! I forgot that one. For mine, if the ball doesn't reach the rope, it shouldn't be four, regardless of whether the fielder touched the rope of not - I mean, the ball hasn't covered the full distance to the boundary has it?

Perhaps it should stay the way it is for sixes though - otherwise there will be endless pointless debate about whether or not the ball has passed a spot in the air that's directly above the rope/line.

What if the ball is hit on one bounce and a fielder goes beyond the boundary rope and then pushes the ball back into the field of play?

 

[Matt79]

I think the bad light rules need to be reexamined. In the last year there have been lots of examples of players leaving the field in what appeared to be not that bad light. I don't fault the batsmen, as the rules stand they're fools to stay out in difficult condition if they don't have to, but it seems in some cases the rule tends towards preciousness.

The rule actually states that it would be dangerous for play to continue. Given the improvements in helmets and other protective gear since that rule was drafted, I think either the umpires need to revise their opinion of what's dangerous, or an amendment needs to be introduced that the umpires can direct that spin must be bowled as an alternative to stopping play, but that so long as spin is being bowled, the batsmen have to stay out there and play.

Its unfair to batsmen in terms of making their job more difficult, but honestly, its test match cricket and so many of the aspects of the game that used to 'test' batsmen's ability to cope in varied conditions are disappearing - when there's merely 'reasonable' light as opposed to 'good' light, they should stay out.