Shouldn't this rule be changed?

[adharcric]

So i propose velcro stumps. If the ball sticks, your out.

Wouldn't you need velcro-sticking balls too then?

 

[deeps]

it's alot easier to tell when the ball has contacted a stump, than if the bail has been removed.

However i think it should only apply to run outs. When a bowler bowls and hits the stumps, the bails must fall. If it's a run out/stumping chance, THEN it just needs to hit the stump

MY opinion anyway

In regards to Atichon's suggestion - I think it would be good in twenty20. I wouldn't want to change the rule in test or one day cricket, but in twenty20, it would add more pressure and would make it even more interesting - though harder

 

[marc71178]

it's alot easier to tell when the ball has contacted a stump, than if the bail has been removed.

Not really.

If the ball just clips the stumps then it cannot be certain what it hit.

IIRC there was a ball that clipped leg stump on the way to the keeper and was called a wide.

 

[deeps]

yes but i meant on camera.

third umpire can see it hittin or clipping the stump.

Like i said, for bowled decisions, it should remain that the bail must be moved

 

[thedarkmullet]

Its a tough one.

I remember Vettori against Zimabwe last year was bowled and had the bails fly up(dislodged), and then land back ontop of the stumps...not out. He went on to get 100.

 

[luckyeddie]

Wouldn't you need velcro-sticking balls too then?

Velcro-cricket - another great area that really needs addressing, and one which allows us scope for further 'active participation' (a bit like how the crowd get really worked up when they are waiting for 'third umpire' decisions only sillier).

My proposal is that as well as velcro balls, we ought to have velcro pads too that only react to 'straight on' impact. If the batsman gets struck on the pad and the ball sticks, well that's then taken the inside edge out of the equation. This then would mean that the umpires would have additional time to think of other important aspects of the game - Billy Bowden could work on his new hand signals, Simon Taufel could possibly spend a little time looking through catalogues of swatches to decide what material he wants his new stetson made out of - you know, the important side of cricket.

As for crowd participation - those really close run-outs could be decided by a game of skill instead of just the stuffy old third umpire. If it's really close (bail up v bail down v bail made of some strangely transparent material as is often the case) then two dwarves should be brought out to the middle, each dressed head to foot in velcro-covered clothing. The fielder who attempted the run-out and the batsman should each choose a dwarf, and the object of the exercise is to determine how high they can throw them and get them to stick on a specially-covered velcro sightscreen - if the batsman's dwarf ends up higher, then he is clearly not out.

I'm sure I can come up with a whole bunch of other scenarios to improve the game, but there's one immediate huge disadvantage - Velcro was invented by George de Mestral, a Swiss engineer. If we progress to the natural conclusion again, instead of a bell ringing to signal the umpires coming out of the pavilion, we'll have to use a ****oo Clock - and that's more than even I could take and I'll probably have to stab myself with a piece of sharpened Toblerone or even a (choke) Kit-Kat).

 

[GIMH]

What's the rule if the bails are removed by, say, a batsman's drive, so he continues to run, what does the fielder then have to do to run out the batsman, seems as there aren't any bails to dislodge?

This came up in the England-India ODI series but the commentators didn't seem to be aware of any clear cut ruling, but Dravid was given out because Collingwood moved middle stump. I think.

 

[GotSpin]

Velcro-cricket - another great area that really needs addressing, and one which allows us scope for further 'active participation' (a bit like how the crowd get really worked up when they are waiting for 'third umpire' decisions only sillier).

My proposal is that as well as velcro balls, we ought to have velcro pads too that only react to 'straight on' impact. If the batsman gets struck on the pad and the ball sticks, well that's then taken the inside edge out of the equation. This then would mean that the umpires would have additional time to think of other important aspects of the game - Billy Bowden could work on his new hand signals, Simon Taufel could possibly spend a little time looking through catalogues of swatches to decide what material he wants his new stetson made out of - you know, the important side of cricket.

As for crowd participation - those really close run-outs could be decided by a game of skill instead of just the stuffy old third umpire. If it's really close (bail up v bail down v bail made of some strangely transparent material as is often the case) then two dwarves should be brought out to the middle, each dressed head to foot in velcro-covered clothing. The fielder who attempted the run-out and the batsman should each choose a dwarf, and the object of the exercise is to determine how high they can throw them and get them to stick on a specially-covered velcro sightscreen - if the batsman's dwarf ends up higher, then he is clearly not out.

I'm sure I can come up with a whole bunch of other scenarios to improve the game, but there's one immediate huge disadvantage - Velcro was invented by George de Mestral, a Swiss engineer. If we progress to the natural conclusion again, instead of a bell ringing to signal the umpires coming out of the pavilion, we'll have to use a ****oo Clock - and that's more than even I could take and I'll probably have to stab myself with a piece of sharpened Toblerone or even a (choke) Kit-Kat).

Just play a game of 2 ups
Hell, just have one "batsmen" and one "bowler" playing eachother in two ups. Batsmen favour runs are scored, bowlers favour out.

 

[andyc]

What's the rule if the bails are removed by, say, a batsman's drive, so he continues to run, what does the fielder then have to do to run out the batsman, seems as there aren't any bails to dislodge?

This came up in the England-India ODI series but the commentators didn't seem to be aware of any clear cut ruling, but Dravid was given out because Collingwood moved middle stump. I think.

I was under the impression that you had to remove one of the stumps. I remember watching a domestic game where someone (Tom Moody, maybe) where the bails had been removed somehow, and they went for a run, upon which one of the fielders hit the stumps with the ball and he was given out. The batsman then consulted with the umpire, and it was the only time I'd seen an umpire recall a decision, because the stumps obviously hadn't been removed.

 

[oz_fan]

What's the rule if the bails are removed by, say, a batsman's drive, so he continues to run, what does the fielder then have to do to run out the batsman, seems as there aren't any bails to dislodge?

This came up in the England-India ODI series but the commentators didn't seem to be aware of any clear cut ruling, but Dravid was given out because Collingwood moved middle stump. I think.

A similar thing happened in the VB Series when SA versed SL. I think that one of the fielders pulled the stump from the ground.

 

[GotSpin]

I was under the impression that you had to remove one of the stumps. I remember watching a domestic game where someone (Tom Moody, maybe) where the bails had been removed somehow, and they went for a run, upon which one of the fielders hit the stumps with the ball and he was given out. The batsman then consulted with the umpire, and it was the only time I'd seen an umpire recall a decision, because the stumps obviously hadn't been removed.

Yeah i think thats true, In a club game i accidently trod on the stumps knocking off the bails and then i had to take the stump out when i got the ball.

 

[luckyeddie]

Just play a game of 2 ups
Hell, just have one "batsmen" and one "bowler" playing eachother in two ups. Batsmen favour runs are scored, bowlers favour out.

Two-up is only a spectator sport when drunken Australians are involved.....

What am I saying? That's always! Perfect!!!

 

[GotSpin]

Two-up is only a spectator sport when drunken Australians are involved.....

What am I saying? That's always! Perfect!!!

What can i say. "blows on nails" I am a man of ideas

 

[luckyeddie]

I was under the impression that you had to remove one of the stumps. I remember watching a domestic game where someone (Tom Moody, maybe) where the bails had been removed somehow, and they went for a run, upon which one of the fielders hit the stumps with the ball and he was given out. The batsman then consulted with the umpire, and it was the only time I'd seen an umpire recall a decision, because the stumps obviously hadn't been removed.

If one bail has been dislodged accidentally, you can just remove the other one. If both are off beforehand, you have to physically uproot a stump.

If, however, both are off because they have been dispensed with (weather or unavailability), then the umpires are the sole arbitors as to whether the wicket has been put down.

See law 28.

Edit: Personally, I prefer the solution which offers the maximum utilisation of dwarves.

 

[honestbharani]

But aren't there instances on windy days when the umps just remove the bails at times? Plus, with the stump mic around, we can here the ball if hits the stumps. With a combination of the cameras and the stump mic, I think we can reasonably judge whether the ball has or has not made contact with the stumps. My point is, the basic idea of batting is to protect the ball from hiting the stumps, first and foremost. And similarly when running, you got to get to the crease before one of the fielders manages to get the ball onto the stumps. This rule makes it unnecessarily complex, IMO. And just what is up with all the heavy bails recently?

 

[luckyeddie]

But aren't there instances on windy days when the umps just remove the bails at times? Plus, with the stump mic around, we can here the ball if hits the stumps. With a combination of the cameras and the stump mic, I think we can reasonably judge whether the ball has or has not made contact with the stumps. My point is, the basic idea of batting is to protect the ball from hiting the stumps, first and foremost. And similarly when running, you got to get to the crease before one of the fielders manages to get the ball onto the stumps. This rule makes it unnecessarily complex, IMO. And just what is up with all the heavy bails recently?

Indeed (as I intimated above).

Perhaps we ought to consider doing away with bails after all - when we were 8 and playing cricket on the Rec we certainly didn't need them. In fact, bails would have been a positive hinderance - how could you knock one off the top of a milk crate?

I think we ought to keep thinking about utilising more and more dwarves, especially now George Lucas isn't going to be making any more Star Wars films (hopefully) and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is done too, so all the R2 Unit operators will have been made redundant and the Oompa Loompas are seeking gainful employ too. Cricket ought to be taking the lead.

Get rid of stumps entirely and use a dwarf at each end. You'll hear the screams all right just before any appeal - no third umpire required. One drawback though - Ricky Ponting will accuse England of utilising dwarves that are smaller than usual, or (even worse) smuggling in ones with speech impediments or ones who have had their vocal cords surgically removed. Gary Pratt was quite small, wasn't he?

 

[cpr]

Hmm, the problem with Dwarves is can you trust them to be neutral? Who's to say a well trained English dwarf wont scream when Ponting smacks him one in the nads next ashes. Infact if its a eunuch dwarf were looking at a rather large (or indeed small, depending on how you look at it) problem.


Do you use local dwarves for tests, or do you have to import them for neutrality?
Will be need an ICC elite panel of dwarves?
How many substitute dwarves will we need incase on gets knocked out?
Its human nature to move when a painfull object is hurled at you. Will we have special no flinching camps to keep the dwarves in place? Will dwarves be given a 15 degree natural angle of bend to work within?

These things need considering

 

[33/3from3.3]

That's up for the Skull that is

 

[luckyeddie]

That's up for the Skull that is

There's a few hats in the ring this week (in fact, I reckon the entire circus is still up mine and it's a week since I had my operation)

 

[Matt79]

Before we unleash a horde of miscreant midgets on the unsuspecting public, has anybody considered building stumps and bails to a standard that precludes them being undislodgable by any decent contact?

Otherwise, the answers to CPRs questions are obviously:
Do you use local dwarves for tests, or do you have to import them for neutrality?
We buy Willy Wonkas force of Umpa Lumpas - not only are they high-visibility orange, they are from magical Lumpaland - which is yet to be accorded international status and hence they're neutral, albeit judgemental of small children.
Will be need an ICC elite panel of dwarves?
The Umpa Lumpas, with their store of folksy wisdom, ability to carry a tune, and grasp of good ettiquette, child-raising, and confectionary manufacturing, will in fact replace the ICC. And at last we will have sanity.
How many substitute dwarves will we need incase on gets knocked out?
Umpa Lumpas are quite resiliant. No doubt made so by the predications of the Vicious Knids and the Dickension conditions put in place by old man Wonka. But if one was knocked out, there's nothing immoral about nailing an Umpa Lumpa's feet in place and putting a stump on their back as a stake.
Its human nature to move when a painfull object is hurled at you. Will we have special no flinching camps to keep the dwarves in place?
Strictly speaking Umpa Lumpas aren't human. But blindfolds are cheaper than non-flinching camps, and don't inhibit grunts when the wearer is struck with a hard ball.
Will dwarves be given a 15 degree natural angle of bend to work within?
From what I've seen of their work, Umpa Lumpas only bend at the waist, and only bend forward. So long as they're facing the bowler (blindfolded as a kindness/practicality of course) it should be a problem.