New Rules Gentlemen New Rules. . .

[SJS]

The time has come for us batsmen to take things in our own hands, we cant allow the ICC or the umpires, let alone the ragged grounds-men in India (or elsewhere) to decide our fate. The time has come for the laws of OUR game to be revised. Here is the first instalment. Other batsmen are requested to come in with their own suggestions please.

New Rules Gentlemen New Rules. . .

3.2A Third Umpire/Decision Review System
The following shall apply in addition to Clause 3.1 and 3.2 :

3.2A.1 The Umpires before making any decision shall consult the fielding umpire and the batsmen at the crease. The decision shall be made only in the case of a consensus between all concerned.

3.2A.2 In the event of one or more voices of dissent the umpire shall be required to go to the 3rd umpire.

3.2A.3 In the event the 3rd umpire is unable to come to a firm decision he shall refer the matter back to the umpire on the ground who shall now have to consult the match referee.

3.2A.4 In case the Match referee is unable to come to a satisfactory decision he shall have to refer the matter to the ICC.

3.2A.5 In the event the ICC too is unable to resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction they shall refer the matter to BCCi. The President of the BCCI in consultation with Mr Lalit Modi shall deliver the final verdict.

BCCI's decision will be binding to all.​

New Rules Gentlemen New Rules. . .

Law 3.8 - Fitness of Ground, Weather and Light and Law 3.9 -
Suspension of play for adverse conditions of ground, weather or light

Laws 3.5.2 shall be replaced by:
3.5.2 A The batsmen shall be the final judges of the fitness of the ground,
weather and light for play. See 3.5.2B below and Law 7.2 A (Fitness of
the pitch for play).

3.5.2 B If the batsmen (one or more) of either side are of the opinion that the wicket is not conducive to batting like Afridi and ending with an average like Bradman at a strike rate like Sehwag they shall deem the wicket unsuitable for play and dangerous to them personally and their reputations as flat track bullies.

7.2 A The ball after pitching is expected to have an even bounce. If any ball bounces to a height deemed as uneven the pitch shall be deemed unfit to play. Even bounce, for the purpose of this clause, shall be defined as bounce to the exact height to the level of the sweet spot of the bat.

The batsman's decision on the bounce shall be final.

7.2 B In case of a quick fall of top order wickets the batsmen shall be allowed to deem the same as having been extraordinary and likely to have been caused by the unplayable state of the wicket. The following shall be used as guidelines for extraordinary circumstances.

a) 5 wickets falling before 100 is reached
b) A strike rate of under 7 in the first 15 overs and under 6 in the first 25 overs of an ODI
c) A hat-trick unless it involves numbers 9, 10 and 11 in the batting order
d) Three consecutive wild heaves failing to connect the ball.
e) Any happening that brings a smile to the bowlers face.​

New Rules gentlemen New Rules. . .

Law 19 - Boundaries
1 Law 19.1 - The boundary of the field of play

The playing area shall be a maximum of 50 yards (45.72 metres) from
boundary to boundary square of the pitch, with the shorter of the
two square boundaries being a maximum 25 yards (15.24 metres). The
straight boundary at both ends of the pitch shall be a maximum of 35
yards (32.00 metres). Distances shall be measured from the centre of the
pitch to be used.​

New Rules gentlemen New Rules . . .​

 

[archie mac]

Yes I agree, I also think we could learn alot from WG

 

[Sir Alex]

Add this too :

If it is an Australian then the charging of dissent / misconduct shall never exceed level one even if it means a lesser punishment than the prior instance.

 

[GotSpin]

Add this too :

If it is an Australian then the charging of dissent / misconduct shall never exceed level one even if it means a lesser punishment than the prior instance.

go troll go

 

[Streetwise]

Add this too :

If it is an Australian then the charging of dissent / misconduct shall never exceed level one even if it means a lesser punishment than the prior instance.

And if any player from any country other than Australia is given a penalty then an Australian (selected by poll) player must be given the same penalty so that the referee looks like he is fair.

 

[archie mac]

Add this too :

If it is an Australian then the charging of dissent / misconduct shall never exceed level one even if it means a lesser punishment than the prior instance.

Personally I thought they all should have been given a one match Test ban

 

[SJS]

Look here guys this is about the way the game is being run for the benefit of the batsmen who are pampered even more than I was as a kid and trust me that was something

Why must we bring all our other issues into every single debate and every single thread.?

This thread was inspired by what happened at Feroze Shah Kotla today. I personally would have loved to see the batsmen showing some guts and some innovation to try and score what best they could, even 125 or 150 and then see whether the opposition can do better. No one would have been killed and we may have been able to enjoy the game and see what our "great" batsmen are capable of on bad wickets.

If you disagree with me, you are free to say so. But this is not about Australia or any other country this is purely about batsman friendly regime.

 

[Sir Alex]

go troll go

Care to go thru my posts in WI vs Aus official thread. And pls come back. Kthxbye.

 

[Redbacks]

And if any player from any country other than Australia is given a penalty then an Australian (selected by poll) player must be given the same penalty so that the referee looks like he is fair.

 

[Matt79]

Back on SJS's topic, the major issue at the moment with the proposed introduction of day-night cricket is that it might be hard for batsmen to cope with the transition and that the ball might do more at night. Pretty bad if that's the case. With all the advantages that have been allowed into the game for batsmen in the last period, something going the other way wouldn't go amiss.

 

[Midwinter]

If you plead guilty and admit you have done the wrong thing you should get the same penalty as someone who pleads not guilty for doing the same thing and is then proven guilty ?

 

[Matt79]

Take the troll-bait-swallowing to the dedicated threads lads...

 

[Jono]

I really really wish I watched the match so I could make my own decision about whether the match should have been abandoned and seen exactly what the pitch was doing.

Would have loved to see India chasing 150-odd on that wicket, but I can't say for sure how dangerous it was without watching a ball bowled.

 

[Matt79]

Apparently Jayawardena had retired hurt before Dilshan was hit. Some were scooting along as grubbers and others landing in near identical spots were rearing head height supposedly.

 

[Jono]

If you read the Cricinfo commentary they called it very early, before even the commentators apparently started mentioning how dangerous the wicket was (other than Gavaskar's pitch report, which seems to be classic - hair transplant )

 

[Shri]

Apparently Jayawardena had retired hurt before Dilshan was hit. Some were scooting along as grubbers and others landing in near identical spots were rearing head height supposedly.

Except that Jayawardene did not play today.

 

[Sir Alex]

If you plead guilty and admit you have done the wrong thing you should get the same penalty as someone who pleads not guilty for doing the same thing and is then proven guilty ?

I dont wish to repeat my arguments here but please have a look at these posts

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...al-west-indies-australia-220.html#post2105193

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...al-west-indies-australia-220.html#post2105205

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...al-west-indies-australia-221.html#post2105212

Those are enough proofs of how match referees particularly Broad has been guilty of handling constant troublemakers like Watson with kid gloves.

Take the troll-bait-swallowing to the dedicated threads lads...

Care to explain what constituted "trolling" above? I have not targeted players but match referees and with facts taken from ICC website.

Apparently Jayawardena had retired hurt before Dilshan was hit. Some were scooting along as grubbers and others landing in near identical spots were rearing head height supposedly.

Jayawardene did not even play the match

 

[GotSpin]

Care to go thru my posts in WI vs Aus official thread. And pls come back. Kthxbye.

Thanks for your totally unrelated response to the topic post though.. kthanksbye

 

[Matt79]

Picking fights on a subject utterly unrelated to the thread topic which you've already been arguing at length in other threads = trolling IMO

re the Jayawardena, was basing that on the Cricinfo bulletin which I misread - it said Jayawardena was "out with a groin injury", which I wrongly interpreted as him having retired hurt with an injury.

 

[Sir Alex]

Matt, I read the opening post in this thread and frankly I don't see how my post is "unrelated" to what the threadstarter had in mind. I think it is all a bit of tongue in cheek! I don't think it has been "done in detail" even in other thread and actually merits a thread of it's own but never mind.