No runners ever and yes to UDRS

[KiWiNiNjA]

Or not... BCCI to oppose.

Ridiculous!

"The inadequacy of the UDRS has been exposed in this edition of the World Cup."

o rly?

 

[marc71178]

You mean the UDRS without which it's distinctly possible they wouldn't have won the World Cup?!

 

[Howe_zat]

The reason why the batsmen is in the way of the throw in the first place is because he knows that he is going to be short of his ground if the bowler hits the stumps down. Hence, its not really considered 'penalising' a batsman with his wicket when he should be out in the first place.

As I said earlier, there is no logical reason for a batter to run right in front of the stumps, when he can run pretty much anywhere on the ground, unless he is blocking a throw.

I'd love to see a batsman suddenly change his mind and run off towards square leg.

 

[Shri]

I'd love to see a batsman suddenly change his mind and run off towards square leg.

Don't let Sreesanth read this.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Going to disagree with you vehemently on this one. Where I think the rule clearly needs to be changed is when the batter dabs the ball down and then runs right in front of the stumps so that the bowler has essentially 0 chance of hitting the stumps or even getting it close to someone who could do the same. This happens almost every other game and theres absolutely no excuse for why any batsman should be allowed to run right in front of the stumps. Bowlers arent allowed to do it (they get warned for running in line with the stumps), why should batsmen? Either run on one side or the other FFS, crisscrossing or running right in front of the stumps should both be banned.

A batsman can rightly argue that they are taking the shortest route to the other end.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Law 42, fair/unfair play



Dunno if it's ever escalated to the point of the fielding side having 5 runs awarded to the their total but rarely has a bowler been removed from the attack either. Have seen some bowlers get heaps of warnings.

Have played in a game of club cricket when I was 14 where a wanky umpire started taking runs off us for it, ridiculous stuff. And we were batting second, so it didn't even affect the other side.

 

[GIMH]

It would help them if anything, no?

 

[Top_Cat]

Have played in a game of club cricket when I was 14 where a wanky umpire started taking runs off us for it, ridiculous stuff. And we were batting second, so it didn't even affect the other side.

hehe, you know the groundskeeper would have lost his **** at your club if he rocked up on Monday and found that the deck had been chewed up, even if it wasn't affecting the chances of other other team.

(absolutely zero personal experience talking here, by the way )

Still, ridiculous stuff. Smacks of teaching you guys a life lesson rather than running the game at hand.

It would help them if anything, no?

Not in a two day game where you're batting second.

 

[Jono]

What are people's thoughts of removing bowling restrictions for ODI cricket (seems to have gone under the radar in this thread).

Vettori could bowl 25 overs in a ODI

Personally I'm for it.

 

[robelinda]

One bowler, can bowl as much as he likes. AWESOME law change.

 

[Daemon]

That's gonna mean fewer bowlers, 0 part timers, deep batting line ups, aggressive batting. Don't know what to make of it

 

[Borges]

What are people's thoughts of removing bowling restrictions for ODI cricket (seems to have gone under the radar in this thread).

IMHO, the best suggestion that the committee has made; the kind of sensible recommendation that committees are rarely capable of making. For one, it allows a great bowler to have as much of an impact on the game as a great batsman. Second, because I'm sick and tired of seeing captains - all captains - take a bowler off while he is in the middle of a genuinely good spell, so that he can squeeze in a few cheap overs from his pie chuckers. Most importantly, because genuine bowlers would be preferred over bits and pieces players - if I can avoid seeing someone like Yardy play international cricket, that would be a stellar achievement in itself.

The recommendation that I would have really liked to see, albeit one which any committee headed by Clive Lloyd is extremely unlikely to make, is one regarding the banishment of ultra-short boundaries. The joke T20 that they play in England typically has boundaries that do not exceed 55 meters on any side, with the ropes drawn in and acres of unutilised space all around. Several grounds for IPL are only marginally better. I'm surprised that the people who flock to see these things don't realize that they are being conned.

 

[Jono]

That's gonna mean fewer bowlers, 0 part timers, deep batting line ups, aggressive batting. Don't know what to make of it

Better batting against better bowling.

How can this be a bad thing?

 

[Teja.]

What are people's thoughts of removing bowling restrictions for ODI cricket (seems to have gone under the radar in this thread).

All for it. Would've been awesome if they got this rule in when Murali was still playing at an ATG level.

One consequence of this rule change will be that quality spinners will be more valuable in ODI cricket than quality pacers.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah, am in favour of removing fielding restrictions.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, am in favour of removing fielding restrictions.

Big fan of the single to long on?

 

[silentstriker]

Hey let's have Zaheer Khan bowl 20 ODI overs 30 times a year in addition to all his other bowling. It's going to be SO AWESOME to whittle down our burgeoning fast bowling stocks.

 

[Jono]

Hey, let's not change a rule that will improve the game because of one player, and because SS doesn't like it.

 

[Borges]

Hey let's have Zaheer Khan bowl 20 ODI overs 30 times a year

He will get clobbered so badly if he bowls 20 overs out of 50 that his captain will be forced to take him off much earlier than that.

On an average, Zaheer bowls just about 17 overs in an entire test innings. About 25 overs (four spells) out of a total 100 overs or so is his upper limit.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm not sure I like the idea. I see how in theory we'd cut down on the part-timers, but it might mean that fast bowlers who don't contribute otherwise may not be picked. Why pick your 90mph quick to bowl 8 overs in the match when you can pick two spinners and a meduim-fast bloke to bowl 50 overs between them, then stack the batting?