Rules you would change if you could

Anyone have any rules of cricket they would like to see change (even though history/tradition may mean it will never happen) ?

I have two pet hates that Id change if I could.

1) The twelth man.

Cricket seems alone in world sports in not allowing teams to change their sides before they run on the pitch. The toss and the decision whether to bat or bowl is a huge issue in cricket and Id prefer teams could decide which 11 of the 12 will play AFTER the toss has been decided. The winning captain would then have to consider what the opposing team would do (eg play two spinners if made to bowl last or an extra paceman if put in the field first). It seems silly to me that a team cant put what it considers to be its best side out just because they lost a coin toss.


2) The accidental run out (non strikers end)

Have never liked that a batsman at the non striking end can be run out just because a ball deflects of a bowler into the stumps. I have no problem if the bowler plays at the ball and attempts (in the opinion of the umpire) to deliberately break the stumps. But accidental defelctions should not be a run out, there should be some intent.

I remember seeing Sangakarra on 100+ a few years ago against Australia almost get out this way and it would have been cruel. It was also probably the only way he was going to get out he was batting so well.


Opinions anyone? Or any rules you would change if you had the power?

Disagree with both, though much more strongly on 2). than 1).

This thread was done a few weeks ago, and I deplored the leg-bye, which rewards a failure to hit the ball.

The only law I would change is that SA batsmen must be out twice before officially being out.

kwinigolfer wrote:Disagree with both, though much more strongly on 2). than 1).

This thread was done a few weeks ago, and I deplored the leg-bye, which rewards a failure to hit the ball.

I agree with you on the leg-bye, I'd personally only retain it for when the batsman gets hit while taking evasive action - if you wear one and get bruised then runs are a little more deserved.

I don't like the rule where you can't have a runner even if you're injured after coming out to bat. Sure the overweight weezy guys with a note from matron are looking for any excuse to not run but normally a runner results in a run out as they're so confusing.

I also think that getting a faint touch to a ball spanked down the park adds a nice dimension to the game and there's a simple solution for the non-strike batsman, watch the ball and wait to run in situations where the ball is driven straight down the ground.

The Duckworth system always seems to favour the second batting team as usually the first innings team builds a total at the end of the game and has that taken away from them. However, a suitable replacement is not something I feel comfortable to comment on because a rain-shortened match is a lottery whichever way you look at it.

I like this referring to the video umpire and having limited opportunities to do so. But if you do refer the decision and the video umpire rules in your favour, how does that work in terms of you giving up a referral decision? Seems to me if the umpire out on the field is wrong and you are right, that shouldn´t count. Anyway, excuse me, but this thing wasn´t around when I had ready access to cricket so don't really know how it works.

The outfield decision where you can't now catch the ball, throw it up into the air and step over the boundary line and then come back into the field of play and catch the ball again. I saw an England fielder do just that and it seems ludicrous not to reward that clever thinking by a player. Why did that have to change?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
I also think that getting a faint touch to a ball spanked down the park adds a nice dimension to the game and there's a simple solution for the non-strike batsman, watch the ball and wait to run in situations where the ball is driven straight down the ground.

We usually tell players not to watch the ball though and trust their striker's call. Of course should the striker hit the ball and suspect a possible run-out, he should shout "no" (rather than "wait" to indicate the non-striker has to get back rather than stay where he is), but when the ball is absolutely smashed if he's backing up he won't have time to get back. Anyway I don't mind this law so much, and it would be very tough to determie whether it was done deliberately or not (I feel a lot of the time it is done "half-deliberately").

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
The Duckworth system always seems to favour the second batting team as usually the first innings team builds a total at the end of the game and has that taken away from them. However, a suitable replacement is not something I feel comfortable to comment on because a rain-shortened match is a lottery whichever way you look at it.

DL does take into account probably acceleration at the end of the innings when setting the target. I must admit I have no idea how it works, but if you have more wickets in hand, DL (rightly) assumes you will score more runs in the latter overs. So say you are 200/2 after 40 when the rain comes down, your DL "par score" will probably be near 300, whereas if you are 200/8 it may only be 230.

A couple of things DL struggles with: the fact that there is a batsman who is "in" (and indeed the different abilities of the batsmen available) isn't taken into account. In the above example, should Morgan still be at the crease at 200/8 with Swann batting at 10 you would expect more runs than if it was say Borthwick and Anderson with Finn to come (or something) but DL will return the same score. Short of coming up with even more complicated formulae which take into account every player's record, I don't think there's an easy fix. The second thing is I don't think DL has caught up with T20 yet in the sense that the system still 'believes' 150 off 20 overs is a tough target. This is for the simple reason that DL is based on all matches having been played up until now, and T20 still being relatively new hasn't made a statistical mark yet. I suspect in time this will be rectified naturally by the system.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
I like this referring to the video umpire and having limited opportunities to do so. But if you do refer the decision and the video umpire rules in your favour, how does that work in terms of you giving up a referral decision? Seems to me if the umpire out on the field is wrong and you are right, that shouldn´t count. Anyway, excuse me, but this thing wasn´t around when I had ready access to cricket so don't really know how it works.

Pretty sure that if you get a review "right" you keep it. Same as tennis but different from American Football (2 reviews, you get a 3rd if you get both right and that's that).

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
The outfield decision where you can't now catch the ball, throw it up into the air and step over the boundary line and then come back into the field of play and catch the ball again. I saw an England fielder do just that and it seems ludicrous not to reward that clever thinking by a player. Why did that have to change?

I think that's still ok. What isn't ok is standing outside the rope, jumping in the air, knocking the ball back in field, running inside the rope and then catching it. This is now 6 runs (correctly in my view, otherwise you could stand in the stands and save 6 by virtue of jumping). This was changed fairly recently, but I remember I think Angelo Matthews using this technique before it was, and benifitting from it (although he didn't catch it but only knocked it back in play). Here is the replay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saKJdNhDB_4
that to me is 6 runs, and I think that is the rule which has been changed.

On the original topic, the concept of being able to choose your side after the toss is an interesting one (and there was an occasion this summer when I'd have loved it), but presumably only from 12 (otherwise we will see some large squads being named potentially)?

One I'd like to see go is "not out, hit outside the line (of off-stump)". What has that got to do with anything? I understand the reasoning behind "pitched outside leg" (stop negative bowling from the leggie or SLA), but don't see why getting your feet outside off-stumps should make any difference.

One commented on the previous thread was the throw hitting the stumps and going for overthrows. I explained then that from a coaching perspective (and particularly with young players) you were punishing someone from doing something right (i.e. hitting the stumps, whereas had he missed the throw would probably have been backed up). Since then I have had the good fortune of talking to Chris Taylor who said that they are now trying to coach people to back up in pairs, with one getting the straight line, and the other the probable line of deflection should the ball hit the stumps. It is an interesting development.

Cheers Mike. Got no problem with your vid being called a six. I have no problem with that. Can´t find the example of the catch I mentioned but this one will do as the same thing happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-90i7qBil0k

My impression is that as he stands out of the boundary and then comes back in to catch it that is not out. If that is the case (again I really am not sure), then that´s wrong in my view.

Or if it´s like this Nathan Astle catch, so long as part of your body starts in the field of play you should be allowed to reach over the boundary line to make the catch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XzNnHeicFw&feature=related

Yeah that video was what I thought you were alluding to. I think that's still ok. In fact the video was from earlier this year (and given out, correctly in my view). The first time I have seen a 6 given from something like what Matthews did was at a big bash game last Christmas (this time it was Dave Hussey and the umpires correctly gave 6 runs). Thus the rule was changed before this video which would suggest that such a catch is still ok (unless they've changed the rules again since). Anyone know any different?

Well if that´s still the case then I think that rightly rewards the fielder for clever thinking. Obviously you shouldn´t be able to run into a shortned boundary area, jump up into the air and heave the ball backwards into the sky and run around back in play to take the catch. But I see nothing wrong with stepping out and stepping or jumping back in.

Kia
The rule change happened after the T20 world cup a couple of years ago when one of the SL fielders did similar to Matthews in Mike's link but also got back into the field of play to catch the ball (i.e. tipped the ball up from inside the boundary, ran outside the boundary then jumped (taking off and landiong outside the boundary) to push the ball back inside the rope before returing inside the boundary to catch the ball) - the Law as written didn't consider such things and since the fielder was not in contact with the ground beyond the boundary at the time he touched the ball, the catch was given out correctly to the letter of the Laws as were applicable. The change to the Law is that the fielder would now have to take off inside the boundary for it not to be awarded 6 (similar to the rugby law on the touch line).

Nice one mate. Well that seems pretty fair to me so no need to change that.

What happens if you retire hurt and you come back to bat. Are you allowed a runner if your injury happened when you were batting? I can´t get my head round that rule.

Here's an example of why this shouldn't be changed. Incredible catch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wq5MHIRWqQ

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Here's an example of why this shouldn't be changed. Incredible catch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wq5MHIRWqQ

Doh, I didn't see this post and created a separate thread for that catch.

What about a dead ball when a run-out attempt hits the stumps. If you miss the stumps there's someone backing up normally. If you hit - a good skill - you give runs away. OK, it might look fun to get the overthrows, but it hardly rewards excellence.
Would not agree with no leg byes. As the rules stand, you're either attempting a shot, or trying to get out the way. It's not as if you can stand there kicking the ball away and getting runs for it.

sirfredperry wrote:What about a dead ball when a run-out attempt hits the stumps. If you miss the stumps there's someone backing up normally. If you hit - a good skill - you give runs away. OK, it might look fun to get the overthrows, but it hardly rewards excellence.
Would not agree with no leg byes. As the rules stand, you're either attempting a shot, or trying to get out the way. It's not as if you can stand there kicking the ball away and getting runs for it.

Tend to agree with your first point re run outs Sirfred. Teams often get penalised for having a go at a run out and accurately hitting the stumps. Then you are left with that bizarre situation where to run the player out I believe you have to pull one stump out of the ground, hold the ball in the air, dance on one foot and sing the Canton Racetrack song to effect a run out. Id agree that if the bails are removed by the ball in attempting a run out then the ball becomes dead and no further runs are possible.

yeah I agree with that rule, we lost a game due to that last year, guy was backing the stumps it deflected past him to near the edge of the boundary, instead of getting one they got the 3 they needed with 2 balls spare

hodge wrote:yeah I agree with that rule, we lost a game due to that last year, guy was backing the stumps it deflected past him to near the edge of the boundary, instead of getting one they got the 3 they needed with 2 balls spare

Was the batsman comfortably in when the throw hit? If so, I suggest the throw was unnecessary precisely because of the danger that what happened might happen.

As I say, at the top level they are now apparently teaching people to back up in pairs (where feasible) to cover the angle of a possible deflection.