Replacement Runners

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Personally I think they should be disallowed altogether. If you are fat, get injured and end up with a fit runner, it gives you an unfair advantage for no real reason at all. Man up and tough it out IMO.

Spot the person who's never used a runner. No matter the fitness levels of the runner in comparison to you, it's quite possibly the most awkward and confusing thing to ever do on a cricket field (well, apart from ***ual exploration with Voltman in the outfield....). Absolute chaos to have going on, it's ****ed.

From what I understand, Blizzard jarred his knee turning for a second.

 

[Smudge]

Trust me, dyce, exploration with me in the outfield isn't as fun as it sounds.

In Dunedin grade cricket, we came up against a guy once who called for a runner once he hit about 50-60 with what appeared to be cramps. Problem was that one of his team-mates (who clearly didn't like him) told me during his umpiring stint that the batsman had a chronic muscle problem which flared up whenever he batted for a while. The batsman was also a boring **** which made my decision to question his right to a runner a lot easier - our captain let it slide on this occasion (it was only second grade after all), but the next time we played their side, we refused to allow him a runner.

 

[Son Of Coco]

When was it?

When he was playing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Personally I think they should be disallowed altogether. If you are fat, get injured and end up with a fit runner, it gives you an unfair advantage for no real reason at all. Man up and tough it out IMO.

There are instances where that's not the case though, what if the batsman gets hit by the ball either by the bowler or the fielder? I agree if you're unfit you don't deserve a runner, but you can't really allow for a torn hamstring or something like that when picking the team.

 

[Goughy]

Personally I think they should be disallowed altogether. If you are fat, get injured and end up with a fit runner, it gives you an unfair advantage for no real reason at all. Man up and tough it out IMO.

What is the difference between a fat person getting injured and a thin person?

A skinny person with a pulled hamstring is allowed a runner but the chubby guy cant?

Their weight isnt the problem, its their inability to run due to injury.

 

[Jono]

Smith should have been allowed someone to bat for him in Sydney, and he just do the running.

 

[NUFAN]

I was thinking about this a little more, but why not make the 12th man the runner?

This would likely see specialist 12th man picks who are lightning between wickets and super catches though.

 

[Craig]

Smith should have been allowed someone to bat for him in Sydney, and he just do the running.

So therefore should a batsman get injured and need a runner, the same should apply in what you posted?

 

[Jono]

So therefore should a batsman get injured and need a runner, the same should apply in what you posted?

You got it.

Running is just as much a part of batting as strokeplay. Evident through the fact you can run on a bye, wides etc.

So if a player has their thumb/finger broken, and can't hit the ball anymore, they should have someone be able to play their shots for them, and the just do the running.

Obviously I think neither should be allowed, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Smith should have been allowed someone to bat for him in Sydney, and he just do the running.

Except...that's completely different to what's allowed now.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't think batsmen should be allowed runners. Bowlers don't/can't possibly get help if they do their hamstring, for example. I know they're not perfectly comparable situations, but the game is already loaded far enough in favour of batsmen as it is without needing to pamper them even more.

 

[Craig]

I don't think batsmen should be allowed runners. Bowlers don't/can't possibly get help if they do their hamstring, for example. I know they're not perfectly comparable situations, but the game is already loaded far enough in favour of batsmen as it is without needing to pamper them even more.

TBF if a batsman comes out to bat with a injured hamstring that he got in the match, I don't think anybody could call him soft.

 

[G.I.Joe]

TBF if a batsman comes out to bat with a injured hamstring that he got in the match, I don't think anybody could call him soft.

Yeah, that is true. What I meant is that batsmen with injured hamstrings could possibly still play their shots and have other people run for them, thus contributing to the team. Bowlers with a done hamstring can't run into bowl, they're done for the match. I know its an imperfect analogy since bowlers can't benefit from someone else running for them while bowling anyway, but I reckon things should be evened out. The batsman should be offered the choice of either sitting out or just hitting boundaries without a runner.

 

[Precambrian]

When he was playing.

Crap. Arjuna is a decent runner between the wickets. Once he was injured and had to keep a runner.

 

[Matt79]

It's almost like Healy was just trying to say something hurtful to be annoying if that's the case...

 

[Precambrian]

Healy has consistenly lowered the bars as far as Channel 9 commentary is concerned. Arjuna was a good judge of running between the wickets, otherwise he'd never made the superb middle order batsman he eventually ended up being.

 

[Matt79]

whooosh much?

 

[Precambrian]

whooosh much?

Was too prolific to read the post and assimilate its contents properly.

Whoooooooooooooshed much!

 

[Jono]

Except...that's completely different to what's allowed now.

Umm... thanks.

 

[Julian87]

Awesome mental picture.

I think they should be allowed personally. Mainly because I feel that the actuall process of shot selection, timing, and power are much more important than the running between the wickets "skill" of a Batsman. When was the last time you saw a bloke selected because he could run between the wickets well? anyone?

JP Duminy :ninja: