ICC announce ODI law changes

[James]

ICC announce ODI law changes

 

[Perm]

While the free hit rule favours the batsman incredibly, hopefully it leads to the bowlers starting to realise that they can't get away with no balls all the time. Morne Morkel and Dilhara Fernando are in trouble.

 

[Prince EWS]

Will the ball change be that of a new ball, or just one of a similar age? It seems rather pointless if its the latter really - I like the system of just changing it if its hard to see.

 

[Lostman]

similar age ball, no more reverse swing in odi cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

similar age ball, no more reverse swing in odi cricket.

If its of similar age though, it might reverse swing anyway. In fact, it might even be harder to see than the original. Which makes it fairly pointless IMO.

 

[The Baconator]

Will the ball change be that of a new ball, or just one of a similar age? It seems rather pointless if its the latter really - I like the system of just changing it if its hard to see.

If it is a new ball, it also begs the question of whether there will be a choice for captains.

 

[adharcric]

Hmm, all I have to say is ...

 

[Lostman]

If its of similar age though, it might reverse swing anyway. In fact, it might even be harder to see than the original. Which makes it fairly pointless IMO.

it takes time to work on the ball to make it reverse, even if the ball is old it doesnt mean that would start reversing soon as it is taken in the 35th over.
As for the powerplay regulations, why couldnt it have just gone back to the old 15 overs?

 

[Prince EWS]

it takes time to work on the ball to make it reverse, even if the ball is old it doesnt mean that would start reversing soon as it is taken in the 35th over.

Yes, but the 35-over old ball you get will have been worked on as well...

 

[sohummisra]

What's the point of replacing it with another 35-over ball--one that was probably replaced by another 35-over ball, etc.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/300313.html

Another modification was that there will now be a mandatory change of ball after 35 overs of each innings and the replacement will be a clean used ball. Franklin said that was a good idea and would mean reverse-swing did not become an issue in the final overs.

Not quite sure how you manufacture a clean, used ball, but presumably you take honest men and let them bowl 35 overs.

 

[Xuhaib]

Great lets make ODI cricket even more dire

 

[Pratters]

Who cares whatever the rules are. I am not interested enough to read them till some match I might sit to watch.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not quite sure how you manufacture a clean, used ball, but presumably you take honest men and let them bowl 35 overs.

Assuming that is true, I think it's an awful modication, myself. How exactly has reverse swing become a problem? I think the increasing appearance of it has been great in ODI cricket as it has made the death overs less predictable.

I don't particularly like the no-ball rule either, as I personally don't believe it will do what many are suggesting. The argument for it is the chance that bowlers will work harder at fixing their no-ball problems and hence produce better cricket. However, IMO, the current laws act as enough of a detterent to create that anyway - bowlers with perisistent no ball problems do not have them because they can't be bothered fixing them, but simply because fixing them is easier said than done in their cases. Hence, the only likely outcomes is worse cricket...bowlers who were international standard before this rule will be now below par and replaced by other bowlers who will not actually be better overall, but simply better in comparison to the others.

Poor changes IMO, on both parts. Not as radical as the supersub rule, but much worse IMO.

 

[andyc]

Assuming that is true, I think it's an awful modication, myself. How exactly has reverse swing become a problem? I think the increasing appearance of it has been great in ODI cricket as it has made the death overs less predictable.

I don't particularly like the no-ball rule either, as I personally don't believe it will do what many are suggesting. The argument for it is the chance that bowlers will work harder at fixing their no-ball problems and hence produce better cricket. However, IMO, the current laws act as enough of a detterent to create that anyway - bowlers with perisistent no ball problems do not have them because they can't be bothered fixing them, but simply because fixing them is easier said than done in their cases. Hence, the only likely outcomes is worse cricket...bowlers who were international standard before this rule will be now below par and replaced by other bowlers who will not actually be better overall, but simply better in comparison to the others.

Poor changes IMO, on both parts. Not as radical as the supersub rule, but much worse IMO.

Agree with the whole post, but most especially that point. The way that Cricinfo article is phrased, it sounds as if reverse-swing is a blight on the game. Bowlers getting wickets!? Never!

 

[Richard]

It was nice to read a piece in Wisden a few years back where, apparently, Kookaburra refused to even attempt to manufacture such a ball, in response to a request from on high which was blatantly saying "bowlers are getting too much help" (and this, remember, was in 2004 sort of time - as if!)

Let's hope this nonsense is revealed for what it is. Mandatory ball-change? What utter crap.

Like the other two, though, I have to say. I've always said free-hit rulings help bowlers rather than batsmen, because discouragement from bowling no-balls is badly needed by most bowlers. If it's used on the highest stage of all (that is, obviously, excluding the long-form game) maybe it'll be high-profile enough get people actually thinking about it. Hopefully this is last we'll see of spinners bowling no-balls!

And any ruling that relaxes field-restrictions tends to be a good one IMO.

 

[Richard]

Who cares whatever the rules are.

Quite a few people, actually.

 

[Pratters]

Quite a few people, actually.

My post was to emphasise the fairly less importance of ODIs to a section of fans like myself. Obviously you didn't get it and yet, needed to make a smart ass remark.

 

[Prince EWS]

My post was to emphasise the fairly less importance of ODIs to a section of fans like myself. Obviously you didn't get it and yet, needed to make a smart ass remark.

And in attempting to take a hypothetical question literally, he failed to even do that - as you asked who and not how many.

 

[Richard]

My post was to emphasise the fairly less importance of ODIs to a section of fans like myself. Obviously you didn't get it and yet, needed to make a smart ass remark.

It was nothing but a tit-for-tat, and I'm surprised you didn't notice it. It'd have been more accurate to say "I don't care" rather than "who cares" which suggests most people don't.