Cricinfo: Breaking the laws

[Furball]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the lawmakers want the bowler to "beat" the batsman and/or target the stumps and not the batsman's body?The batsman is taking undue risk and a bowler should back himself to land a peach yorker on middle and off and just knock them instead of following the batsman?

But why should the team benefit when the batsman has failed to do his job?

 

[NasserFan207]

Because the bowler's aim should be to hit the stumps, not the pads. Neither of them have really succeeded.

You may as well implement the three misses rule.

I agreed with backing up, bouncers and light. The old rules concerning bouncers and light existed before we started using the equipment we have today. There's no real danger.

I hate the backing up issue, because as a bowler its annoying as hell to beat a batsman and have them run a bye to the keeper.

 

[Sir Alex]

But why should the team benefit when the batsman has failed to do his job?

The batsman has taken far more risk, given the bowler an opportunity to aim for his wicket, and yet the bowler erred in his basic discipline by following the batsman. He is given the bat to defend his wicket primarily and not his body.

 

[Himannv]

For a second I thought this was a legal issue regarding Cricinfo lol..

Agree with most of those points made though. Definitely should allow more bouncers. Also agree very strongly with banning overthrows when the stumps are hit. Agree also with giving players out when the ball is outside off.

Disagree however with banning legbyes, ball tampering, fielders touching the boundry rope, 12 overs per bowler and the bat in the air is not out rule.

 

[Jakester1288]

I'd be really happy if all the changes mentioned by Cricinfo went through.

Especially the LBW law. If the ball's hitting the stumps, but is interfered with by the batsmans body, without touching the bat or glove, it should be out.

 

[andyc]

ICC backs umpire reviews for 2011 World Cup | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

Highlights:

The ICC Cricket Committee, after its annual meeting at Lord's, has recommended that the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) be implemented in the 2011 Word Cup in the subcontinent and introduced "as soon as possible" in all Test series.

.....

The ICC also agreed to examine the law that permitted non-strikers to back up too far while the ball was being delivered, giving them an unfair advantage in an attempt to complete a run. "ICC Cricket Committee agreed that batsmen trying to steal ground when the bowler is running in to bowl should be discouraged. They will look at regulations that require a batsman to remain in his crease until the bowler's front foot lands."

With regards to the switch-hit, the ICC said that a bowler reserved the right not to bowl if he saw the batsman change his grip before entering his delivery stride. "Should the bowler see a batsman change his grip or stance prior to the delivery stride the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball." The switch-hit had been given an all clear by the MCC - the guardian of the laws of cricket- in 2008.

 

[Sir Alex]

Excellent decision imho.

 

[Jayzamann]

Looks like Chappelli will be picketing the ICC in the near future.

 

[lockton2skipper]

breaking the law - great song by judas priest

 

[pskov]

Ban leg-byes - Disagree, leg byes punishes poor bowling and fielding just as byes do.

Disallow backing up - Agree. Either ban backing up completely or bring back the Mankad. I would have no problem with the previous convention where the bowler would warn the batsman once but then after that warning have no hesitation running the batsman out if he was encroaching again.

Give lbws on balls hitting outside off stump - Not sure. My initial reaction is this would be a radical change with unpredictable consequences. Wouldn't mind seeing it trialled in an ICC tournament, maybe a U-19 World Cup or something.

Don't offer players the light - Agree. The umpires should be the sole arbiters of whether to continue play or not and the only factor in the decision should be safety.

Legitimise ball-tampering - Agree in principle, assuming no foreign objects would be permitted to be used. Probably a good idea to trial this initially though as I think some teams could take it to a real extreme and end up completely ruining the seam of balls inside 30 overs and what that would end up meaning I'm not sure.

Permit more bouncers in ODIs - Agree, should be two bouncers an over in ODIs.

Be consistent in the use of substitutes and runners - Of course no-one would disagree with this in theory but the actual implementation is tricky.

Allow the fielder to touch the boundary rope - No, I like seeing the dual challenge of keeping the ball in play whilst not touching the rope. It increases the appreciation for spectacular saves as well as creates some inventive work such as fielding in pairs.

Ban overthrows for direct hits - Agree, a direct hit should result in a dead ball.

Also, rewrite the laws so a batsman can't take an overthrow when the ball ricochets off his bat while he is trying to slide it into the crease. - Agree, but needs to be some proviso that the batsman has to be in his crease or nearly in his crease, otherwise fielding sides could conceivably just hurl the ball at the batman whenever a run is attempted to prevent any scoring.

Allow two bowlers 12 overs apiece in an ODI innings - Disagree. The challenge of balancing a side to get 5 or 6 good bowling options is one of the key differentiations of limited overs cricket from test cricket. Allow teams to only use 4 bowlers and that distinction is gone.

Don't give a batsman out if he is in but his bat is in the air - Agree. Once the batsman has grounded his bat or foot he should be counted as in until he leaves the crease deliberately attempting another run.

 

[Uppercut]

Abolishing leg-byes would be an absolute nightmare for umpires, especially at lower levels. They're generally the result of bad bowling or fielding anyway. Abolishing them just seems so, so much more trouble than it's worth.

Completely agree regarding mankading. I also hate how batsmen are allowed to run across the stumps when the fielder is taking aim at them. That's pretty much the definition of obstructing the field, surely?

 

[Furball]

Abolishing leg-byes would be an absolute nightmare for umpires, especially at lower levels. They're generally the result of bad bowling or fielding anyway. Abolishing them just seems so, so much more trouble than it's worth.

Completely agree regarding mankading. I also hate how batsmen are allowed to run across the stumps when the fielder is taking aim at them. That's pretty much the definition of obstructing the field, surely?

If a batsman blocks an attempt at a run out by running across the stumps, then the fielding side should appeal.

 

[Streetwise]

Give lbws on balls hitting outside off stump - Not sure. My initial reaction is this would be a radical change with unpredictable consequences. Wouldn't mind seeing it trialled in an ICC tournament, maybe a U-19 World Cup or something.

.

Without this rule it would make preparation of the pitch vital, it would be used to exploit the use of slow bowlers. I think cricket would become a umpire dominated game that just goes from controversy to controversy over the amount of LBWs. I think this rule would be insane and probably and do a great deal of damage to cricket.

It wouldnt have the impact in games other than tests that have pitches made for them.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Cricinfo XI: Laws that need changing | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Some good points in here, some not so good. I found myself agreeing strongly with the first 3.

- Leg byes are essentially a consolation prize for the batsmen not being good enough to hit the ball.
- I've yet to read a really good supporting argument for not giving a batsman out LBW if the ball hit outside off. The reason for the leg side rule is obvious, but the case for the offside limitation is flakey at best.
- Backing up beyond the crease is unfair & borderline cheating. I don't think it's unsporting in the slightest to run the guy out, the traditional warning (before the law change) was actually a courtesy.
- Light, well that's being changed for the slight better. Again, changing conditions is part of the game, a little murky light is no good reason to come off.
-

I agree with points 1 and 2.
Leg Byes are a joke.. You are a batsman, if you cant make contact with the bat, no runs for you..
Light is another poor excuse.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Surely instead of allowing batsman to leave their crease at the beginning of the delivery stride, it should be at the end of it; i.e. you can mankad before your front foot lands to bowl.