Cricket Rule Changes

[Etienne]

Cricinfo propose 11 changes to the laws to improve cricket.

I think most are fine, a couple a bit dodgy, but the only one I'd really oppose is fiddling with over quotas in ODIs, which would reduce still further the incentives to pick 5 proper bowlers, as the 5th bowler would now only need to fiddle through 6 overs.

[ursus arctos]

Cricket Rule Changes

I don't like one on the boundary rope; it seems to me that the current rule requires fielders to be more athletic and creative in their approach to balls that are going for six.

The "legalisation" of ball tampering, while banning the use of foreign substances, would bring cricket much closer to baseball in this particular respect, though the authorities would have to realise that there are going to be serious attempts to evade the foreign substance part of the rule (as there have been in baseball).

[Etienne]

Cricket Rule Changes

Yeah, plus I'm not sure how appetising we'll all find watching bowlers giving the ball a big chew before bowling, a la Shahid Afridi.

The change to allow LBW when the ball hits outside off stump would dramatically increase dismissals, and possibly make off-spinners the dominant bowler in cricket. Theoretically I agree with them, but I'd like to see it trialled before committing myself.

[ursus arctos]

Cricket Rule Changes

You would definitely need to trial the LBW change.

On tampering, baseball went to a rule where pitchers are not allowed to "go to their mouth" (i.e., put their hand or the ball near their mouth) while standing on the mound.* Cricket might find itself going down the same route if they adopted the proposed rule (which would obviously go against tradition). You would also see guys trying to get away with unusual or "enhanced" fabrics on their trousers.

* Umpires can exempt pitchers from the application of this rule when the temperature is very low, thus allowing them to blow on their hand to keep it warm. Pitchers can also "go to their mouth" after walking off the mound between batters.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Cricket Rule Changes

Given that Graeme Swann is now officially the best bowler ever, offspin seems to be doing well enough as it is without changing the law. Umpires have belatedly decided that propping forward with the bat behind the pad isn't playing a shot, and hawkeye too has made them more confident about giving lbw in general.

I really don't like the "fiddly" fifth bowler in ODIs. I think having 4 proper bowlers, picked irrespective of batting, would be good for the game.

[E10 Rifle]

Cricket Rule Changes

I think the ship's sailed on that one Tubbs. The days of No9 batsmen in ODIs not knowing which end of the bat to hold are long gone, though I salute you in principle for acknowledging the importance to the game's heritage of a healthy smattering of single-figure average duffers in any team.

Don't agree with changing the lbw rule either, for reasons outlined by Tubbs.

[The Purple Cow]

Cricket Rule Changes

I pretty much agree with everything that Etienne says in the first post. World cricket is run by former batsmen, and batsmen have been mollycoddled for far too long.

Regarding LBW, as a bowler it always irritated me that batsmen can pad up to a ball outside the off stump while hiding their bat somewhere behind their pad, and still claim that they were attempting a shot. So if we don't allow this law change, then we need to clarify what 'attempting a shot' actually means.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Cricket Rule Changes

I think that has been clarified, TPC. In fact we're probably a stage on from that in the evolution- batsmen know they'll be given out if they hide bat behind pad, and are getting themselves out caught close in.

I like the way you can run overthrows if the ball has hit the stumps. Lots of throws at the stumps are just for show, and if the batsman's in, then I don't see it as being a particularly good bit of cricket that needs a rule change to protect it.

E10's right about the boat having sailed on fifth bowlers.

[EIM]

Cricket Rule Changes

Hahahahaha

[Andy C]

Cricket Rule Changes

I think I'm being a bit idealistic with my reactions to some of these, but hey.

Ban leg-byes

I agree with this. It's always struck me as rewarding failure, or penalising (partial) successs - depending on whether you're looking at it from the batsman's or the bowler's point of view.

Disallow backing up

When the MCC decided the non-striker could not be run out

I wasn't aware of this.

This rule is actually more difficult to frame than first appears. When is the ball in play? Does it become active at the moment of delivery, or when the bowler begins his run-up, or when the batsman adopts his stance? Should the umpire have to call "play" before each ball, to declare the ball to be in play? Otherwise ther'll be contentious areas like conferences between the batsmen, gardening and so on. And could a bowler who throws down the non-strikers wicket be no-balled for chucking? But I think the principle of not allowing the non-striker to gain an advantage by backing-up out of his crease is a good one.

Give lbws on balls hitting outside off stump
("hitting") should be "pitching" there)

I agree with this. I see LBW as a form of obstruction, and I think that in principle the trajectory of the ball shouldn't make any difference. The business of having circumstances where the batsman can't be given out if offering a stroke should also be removed.

Don't offer players the light

No. I think that this actually enhances the game tactically.

Legitimise ball-tampering

Crikey, no.

and

The one proviso would be the fielding side lose the right to gripe endlessly about the ball - another bonus for spectators - and only the umpires can order it to be changed if it disintegrates.

How do are the umpires to know about the precise condition of the ball unless the fielding side bring it to the umpires' attention?

Permit more bouncers in ODIs

No. In a limited-overs game the batsman has a finite number of opportunities to score, and each bouncer limits this still further. In limited-overs cricket, over-uses of the bouncer is unfair play.

Be consistent in the use of substitutes and runners

I agree, inasmuch as I think the use of substitute fielders has become an abuse. Bowlers shouldn't be allowed to rest up when they feel like it when their side is in the field.

Allow the fielder to touch the boundary rope

No. For one thing, it isn't always a rope and this rule makes the fielder's permitted action more consistent on all grounds.

Ban overthrows for direct hits

Yes. The ball should be dead when it breaks the wicket.

Allow two bowlers 12 overs apiece in an ODI inningsT

I'd acrually suggest a different rule. In, say, a 50-over game I wouldn't restrict the number of overs a bowler can bowl, but I'd have a rule saying that no bowler can bowl more than 10 until five bowlers have been used. This would give the fielding captain much more scope to exercise their caiptaincy skills, yest sides would still need to select a reasonable complement of bowlers

Don't give a batsman out if he is in but his bat is in the air

Agreed.

[Etienne]

Cricket Rule Changes

Give lbws on balls hitting outside off stump
("hitting") should be "pitching" there)

No, hitting is right. You can already be LBW to balls pitching outside the line of off (though not leg), but if you can get your pad outside the line you can't currently be given out as long as you are playing a shot.

[Andy C]

Cricket Rule Changes

Yes, you're right. I'm very old and easily confused.

Anyway, I'd give LBWs for balls that pitch outside leg as well.

[Etienne]

Cricket Rule Changes

Really? Surely that would just lead to right arm bowlers spending their whole time round the wicket to right-hand batsmen, firing it in at leg stump.

[Andy C]

Cricket Rule Changes

I don't see much wrong with that.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Cricket Rule Changes

I'm pro-bouncers in one day cricket.

In true EM Wellings fashion, I can back this up with a story from playing at Cheltenham College. It was a Speech Day game, against the Old Cheltonians 2nd XI, and it was understood nobody pitched it short in such a festive game. One chap came in batted out of his crease and immediately clattered 3 fours off me. I then pitched one short and nearly took his head off. Had he been in his crease he'd have had no trouble at all.

There might be a problem with, say, a team needing a few runs off the last 2 balls, and the bowler chucking down 2 bouncers for defensive reasons. But basically, I don't like the idea of batsmen being able to attack insouciantly like that. You don't even need to be a particularly good player to do that.

[Andy C]

Cricket Rule Changes

I'd also like to see an effective way of penalising slow play within the game itself, rather than trying to sort it out with fines afterwards. Additionally, I'd like to see some acknowledgment in the rules that batsmen are also capable of slowing the over rate.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Cricket Rule Changes

Don't teams who bowl slowly sometimes lose overs when they bat? As you say though, needs flexibility so that if it's the batsman who is slow, then the bowling side doesn't get penalised.

I think the opening game of the 2003 World Cup was contraversial for that reason:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65235.html