No runners ever and yes to UDRS

[silentstriker]

ICC News: ICC cricket committee calls for DRS in all Tests | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

I like all the suggestions tbh. Would be fun to see fast bowlers head hunting the bastards to try to get them to retire through injury . Though with the protection the way it is, I doubt most injuries that require a runner could be caused by the bowling.

Anyway it makes sense on it's own - in other sports if you get injured enough so that you can't perform an important part of your skill, you leave. Running is obviously a key part of being a batsman.

 

[GIMH]

In most team sports, though, if a player is too injured to continue, he gets a substitute. So it's not the same.

 

[silentstriker]

That's certainly true.

 

[Spark]

All good measures but I refuse to call this anywhere near adequate whilst the ball can hit the stumps on a near run out and go for two, three, four extra runs. Worst rule in existence.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not liking the "only one UDRS referral for limited overs", myself.

Should be looking to increase the number, unless there's some mechanism whereby a referral isn't lost for those instances where it's an "umpire's call".

 

[Jono]

Suggestion for no-runners is so good.

 

[fredfertang]

Suggestion for no-runners is so good.

Gordon Greenidge will disagree

 

[silentstriker]

Not liking the "only one UDRS referral for limited overs", myself.

Should be looking to increase the number, unless there's some mechanism whereby a referral isn't lost for those instances where it's an "umpire's call".

I think that's a decent solution. I like two in Tests and one in ODIs, but you don't lose one if your appeal is denied based on 'umpire's call'. Already many of the appeals are useless, I really don't want to increase the number. Don't punish the good appeals, but there shouldn't be more overall referrals given.

 

[robelinda]

No leg byes- i wish they would change to that law. Leg byes suck. No runner is great.

 

[howardj]

No leg byes- i wish they would change to that law. Leg byes suck. No runner is great.

I have been calling for this for years! Why on earth, when the aim of the game is to hit the ball, should you be given runs for missing it!!!

It's different to a wide or bye - in those cases, the fault lies with the bowling team.

By contrast, with a leg bye, the bowling team is not at fault.

Anyway, with that off my chest, I agree with no runners and having the DRS for all Test matches.

 

[robelinda]

Its insane. You miss the ball, yet get a run because it hit some other part of your body. FAIL. Always annoyed me. Especially the old 4 leg byes down the leg side.

 

[Cevno]

No runner won't work unless you allow substitutions.

Increasing the luck quotient with it.

 

[Cevno]

Not liking the "only one UDRS referral for limited overs", myself.

Should be looking to increase the number, unless there's some mechanism whereby a referral isn't lost for those instances where it's an "umpire's call".

Exactly.

And they want to extend the same to tests too?

Without adequate reviews the frustration when wrong decisions are made will only increase rather than decrease and there are many cases where the technology is not clear and there is no way to tell from the field ,where you feel it is out.

 

[Cevno]

Apart from doing away with runners, the committee, in a proposal that would prevent non-strikers from backing up too far, said bowlers be allowed to run them out provided they haven't completed their delivery swing. It also recommended an end to the practice of batsmen changing their direction while running between the wickets to obstruct the bowler or fielder's view while attempting a run-out which is often seen in one-day internationals.

Agree on the first part here ,but what is wrong with the part in bold and how the heck would they judge it?

Further to those, the committee called for experiments with newer ideas in domestic cricket, including removing restrictions for the maximum number of overs for a bowler, no compulsory close-catchers, number of bouncers allowed per over increased from one to two and a maximum of four fielders outside the 30-yard circles during the non-Powerplay overs.

Like none of these ideas.

 

[juro]

The rule I don't get (minor though it be) is why overthrows aren't counted as extras like byes or leg byes. The batsman hits a shot worth 1 run but somehow picks up 5 because of crappy fielding...

And it also counts against the poor bowler (unfair unless he was the one not backing up properly, I guess)

 

[robelinda]

Yea the ball should be dead immediately after it hits the stumps. Crazy law.

But probably the most ******** LAW OF ALL, is the one where say if a team needs 1 to win and the batsman hits a four but they complete one run, then only one run counts, not the 4 runs, even though the ball is bouncing back off the boundary. CRAZY. They only changed within the last 10 years, and Ian Chappell has a big rant on air whenever it happens. Why would they even think to change that in the first place??

 

[zaremba]

But probably the most ******** LAW OF ALL, is the one where say if a team needs 1 to win and the batsman hits a four but they complete one run, then only one run counts, not the 4 runs, even though the ball is bouncing back off the boundary. CRAZY. They only changed within the last 10 years, and Ian Chappell has a big rant on air whenever it happens. Why would they even think to change that in the first place??

Couldn't agree more

 

[zaremba]

Glad they're going to try to get the DRS in for all Tests, and may even stump up some cash for this purpose. In 10 years' time we will all look back in wonder at the fact that some people actually opposed this idea.

As for doing away with runners, well I just can't really see there's any need to change the status quo. Runners are always good value, they always introduce a welcome element of chaos and danger into proceedings. Although funnily enough now I come to think of it I can't remember the last time that I saw a run-out involving a runner.

 

[Top_Cat]

DRS changes would be good, the others I don't really care about at all.

Over-throws aren't cut-and-dried, tbh. Some batters will take a quick single specifically to draw a throw which might get them another run or two. Obviously it's usually a super-risky run so there's a risk vs reward thing and I don't really think it's a big enough problem to necessitate changing the rules for it. Every sport has that sort of tactical element to it which should, in my view, be rewarded. While a batter didn't quite 'earn' the extra runs through an awesome shot, it'd be a more boring game if fielders can have a ping and not be penalised at all while the ball runs away to the fence.

Regarding runners, largely in line with what GIMH said. Taking a batsman completely out of the game when a batting side only has 6 most of the time puts them at a massive disadvantage which I don't think is fair.

EDIT:

It also recommended an end to the practice of batsmen changing their direction while running between the wickets to obstruct the bowler or fielder's view while attempting a run-out which is often seen in one-day internationals.

Heh, good luck with that. Personally, if a batter wants to put his body in front of a hard throw, let him. That sort of practice generally has a way of sorting itself out over time when a batter takes one in the middle of his back.

Eh, a lot of this is pie-in-the-sky stuff, the committee wouldn't be suggesting stuff only if they thought it actually had a chance of getting up. Definitely not in favour of legislating absolutely everything that could be construed as slightly unfair out of the game, though.

 

[juro]

I'm not saying no runs for overthrows. I'm just saying to count them as extras, not allocated to the batsman or bowler.