Transcription: A picture of a bat leaning against some stumps. Superimposed on it is a Tweet from Iceland Cricket: “Name a rule in cricket that should be changed immediately. Why?”
You must log in or register to comment.
Away team chooses who bats first, should hopefully result in more balanced pitches.
Oh interesting. I’ve never seen that suggested before. What I have seen is that after you do a coin toss for game 1 of a series, you alternate on subsequent games. Might achieve a similar result, without being quite so extreme.
I saw this on the Cricket Australia Facebook page. The comments over there are not very good. Some just blatantly bad ideas (first one I saw: “No more leg byes! You should have to hit the ball to score runs, not miss it.”) some that are not actually suggesting changes to the laws of cricket (“Mankad completely legal and regarded as a legitimate tactic of the game”).
Can we do better?
You shouldn’t be run out at the non-strikers end if the batter hits it and it deflects off the bowler or other fielder. The bowler/fielder should have to have a degree of control for it to count as a run out, which could just be changing the trajectory of the ball slightly. But putting your hand out and grazing a finger is not enough
Degree of control is too hard to define. You should take away keeper catches where the ball doesn’t deviate too much either in that case
You already have to have a degree of control to complete a catch (which is nothing to do with how much the ball deviates off the bat).
Umpires already have to make a lot of judgement calls in cricket. This would be no different.
Not sure which rule it would be, but I think back to the 2019 World Cup final, and that ball that hit the bat of Ben Stokes as he dived to get safely back into his wicket.
Not only did he get there, but the ball went for 4, and given the extremely close result and the lateness of that over, it might have made all the difference.
Not sure what you would need to change it to, but it seemed very unfair to me that England got those runs.
Got me thinking, they could get rid of all boundaries that aren’t off the bat, would get rid of all the tedious replays where we are watching to see if the field erv touched the rope or not. Same for over throws the only get the extras for what they can run.
Ha, yeah, make em work for it! :-)
Upvote for the bold take, but personally I don’t agree. As far as I’m concerned, as long as there’s no insinuation that he did it deliberately, that’s just how the game goes. It’s no different from if the throw had gone wide due to a bad throw, or poor catching from the keeper.
Fair enough, but I do think it’s different when it benefits the person it hits.
It would be a tough one to rework though I think. And hands up, I like cricket, but I’m a relatively recent convert and I don’t want it all that often, so my opinion probably doesn’t carry much weight! :-)
Should have looked where he was throwing it. .
- LBW tweaks like removing the “playing a shot when pitching outside off” option
- Maybe something to minimise leg side bouncers and the like in test cricket, which can get a bit boring.
Legit answer.
Some of the duck worth rules in regards to rain delay etc.
When a team wins from that because of rain when they had no chance of doing it with food weather is dumb.
Interesting. So do you think the DLS algorithm is too friendly to late-order batsmen’s scoring ability?
I don’t like t20 much but if it must exist :
- it should be red ball. Far too easy for batsmen. Designed for uneducated crowds
- there needs to be some more restrictions on playing for franchises. Blatant money grab, with the same 20 players floating around the Bash, the Blast and the IPL . Very cynical.
Define uneducated…
the same 20 players floating around the Bash, the Blast and the IPL
Personally I don’t care so much about that, but I hate even the appearance that any form of T20 might take priority over Test cricket for any players or teams. I don’t know how you would deal with that, but it was a vocal problem in the lead-up to the Windies’ most recent series in Australia (although they ended up performing exceptionally well, so the concerns may have ended up unfounded—I just want even the idea that it could be a problem to go away).
Cricket does not have rules.
Not by the letter of the law, no.
Yes it does. The laws of cricket are rules. But “rules” is a broader term, because it also includes tournament/format-specific rules.
Add a seventh inning tea time.
Guessing you’re a baseball fan? In cricket, “innings” is both singular and plural. And games have a maximum of 2 innings per side.
The legality of playing cricket.
