Should substitute fielders be banned?

[silentstriker]

Now that runners are banned, someone brought up the fact that substitute fielders are still allowed, a rule that many think has been abused quite a bit. So what do you think - stay or go?

 

[GIMH]

Substitute fielders are wonderful. Stay.

 

[Cevno]

I didn't want Runners banned ,neither do i want substitute fielders banned.

But by the logic that runners were banned they should be banned too.

 

[Mehul K]

I didn't want Runners banned ,neither do i want substitute fielders banned.

But by the logic that runners were banned they should be banned too.

I agree. But the truth is that there is very little logic to banning runners. I can't recall too many occasions where the runner rule was abused to such an extent that it caused an unfair advantage to a team. If anything runners would cause more confusion between the batsmen.

As for substitutes, we all know that players sometimes take a break for an over or two to change shirts or something minor like that. Its hardly anything to clamp down on. Just like with runners.

 

[Top_Cat]

Have never understood the enmity toward the sub rule, tbh. Even with all the 'abuse' of it which has been going on. All they can do is field and if a team picks a 12th/13th who are gun fielders, so be it. That Ricky Ponting was run out by Gary Pratt will never take away from the fact it was a balls decision to run and, without checking the footage, Ponting was coasting just a bit. Honestly, as a batter, if you're taking no notice of the field changes around you, that's your fault.

Look at it this way; every other game is hours shorter than one day of a Test match and they have subs who, when on the court/field, are able to be fully involved (no rule to stop subs from shooting in basketball, for example) yet in cricket, a much longer game, no-one is allowed a break unless they're going to piss themselves. What the?

 

[biased indian]

clicked yes wrongly...

can continue to allow the sub provided that a sub is allowed only in a scenario where the person he is doing the sub is ruled out for the rest of the match

 

[weeman27bob]

Obviously this isn't a sensible idea, but if we're going down a "improving the standards or cricket" route, then isn't the best thing to enourage the use of subsitute fielders. You could quite easily take it to an extreme and have an American Football style "fielding team" consiting of a bowler, a keeper, and then 9 of the country's best fielders. At the end of the over, a different bowler can come on, allowing all players to stay rested and hopefully injury free.

 

[GIMH]

Obviously this isn't a sensible idea, but if we're going down a "improving the standards or cricket" route, then isn't the best thing to enourage the use of subsitute fielders. You could quite easily take it to an extreme and have an American Football style "fielding team" consiting of a bowler, a keeper, and then 9 of the country's best fielders. At the end of the over, a different bowler can come on, allowing all players to stay rested and hopefully injury free.

In before Burgey claims that's how England won the 05 Ashes

 

[Spikey]

Only problem I have with sub fielders is when they get placed in catching possies/pretty much anywhere except the boundary. Morgan found himself at point during the Ashes and it pissed me off almost as much as seeing Hilf was about to bowl

 

[morgieb]

I didn't want Runners banned ,neither do i want substitute fielders banned.

But by the logic that runners were banned they should be banned too.

This.

 

[Mister Wright]

Of course Substitute players should be banned. In no other sport can you have a player come on and just do this and that and have a great influence on the game. In Basketball you name your 11-12 players, if a bloke gets injured you can't bring someone in from outside the squad to fill in. I know it's different with substitute players in all, but you can't add to the squad, which is what you are doing in cricket if you have a sub fielder.

 

[Athlai]

Of course Substitute players should be banned. In no other sport can you have a player come on and just do this and that and have a great influence on the game. In Basketball you name your 11-12 players, if a bloke gets injured you can't bring someone in from outside the squad to fill in. I know it's different with substitute players in all, but you can't add to the squad, which is what you are doing in cricket if you have a sub fielder.

Baseball has a bunch of funny rules about specialist fielders and runners tbf.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO a compromise would be that a substitue fielders should only be allowed in case the player is out of the rest of the match (eg he won't be able to take the field again). I don't know the exact stats of how often each country uses substitute fielders but I watch every India test match and it seems the vast majority of the time, there is a sub out there filling in for someone or other. It's way overdoing it IMO.

 

[andyc]

If you're out there for 6 hours a day, every now and then you're going to need to come off for a toilet break. There should be a time limit for substitutions (5-10 minutes), beyond which subs are only allowed if, like SS said, the original player is out for the whole game.

 

[morgieb]

Of course Substitute players should be banned. In no other sport can you have a player come on and just do this and that and have a great influence on the game. In Basketball you name your 11-12 players, if a bloke gets injured you can't bring someone in from outside the squad to fill in. I know it's different with substitute players in all, but you can't add to the squad, which is what you are doing in cricket if you have a sub fielder.

Comparing apples with oranges IMO. Most sports have people on the 'bench' that they can call upon if someone gets hurt. Cricket doesn't.

 

[Top_Cat]

Of course Substitute players should be banned. In no other sport can you have a player come on and just do this and that and have a great influence on the game. In Basketball you name your 11-12 players, if a bloke gets injured you can't bring someone in from outside the squad to fill in. I know it's different with substitute players in all, but you can't add to the squad, which is what you are doing in cricket if you have a sub fielder.

It's a debate as old as the game itself, really. Why not name 13 players who can bat or bowl as the team desires but can only use 11 at a time? In the days of glacial rates of scoring, a team well behind in the match could just stack the batting and bat out 2 days for a draw but these days, it keeps the win on the table. Imagine a match situation where a team is chasing 400 to win on the last day but has subbed in 8 specialist batters in the line-up against a team which has subbed in a 3rd spinner or something.

Honestly, quirks and issues aside which would be tweaked over time, I can't think of a reason to oppose that other than it's not the way things have traditionally been done.

 

[Jacknife]

It's a debate as old as the game itself, really. Why not name 13 players who can bat or bowl as the team desires but can only use 11 at a time? In the days of glacial rates of scoring, a team well behind in the match could just stack the batting and bat out 2 days for a draw but these days, it keeps the win on the table. Imagine a match situation where a team is chasing 400 to win on the last day but has subbed in 8 specialist batters in the line-up against a team which has subbed in a 3rd spinner or something.

Honestly, quirks and issues aside which would be tweaked over time, I can't think of a reason to oppose that other than it's not the way things have traditionally been done.

My word, that would give the traditionalists a collective heart attack.

 

[vcs]

It's a debate as old as the game itself, really. Why not name 13 players who can bat or bowl as the team desires but can only use 11 at a time? In the days of glacial rates of scoring, a team well behind in the match could just stack the batting and bat out 2 days for a draw but these days, it keeps the win on the table. Imagine a match situation where a team is chasing 400 to win on the last day but has subbed in 8 specialist batters in the line-up against a team which has subbed in a 3rd spinner or something.

Honestly, quirks and issues aside which would be tweaked over time, I can't think of a reason to oppose that other than it's not the way things have traditionally been done.

You've been spending too much time with SS recently!!

 

[Uppercut]

It's a debate as old as the game itself, really. Why not name 13 players who can bat or bowl as the team desires but can only use 11 at a time? In the days of glacial rates of scoring, a team well behind in the match could just stack the batting and bat out 2 days for a draw but these days, it keeps the win on the table. Imagine a match situation where a team is chasing 400 to win on the last day but has subbed in 8 specialist batters in the line-up against a team which has subbed in a 3rd spinner or something.

Honestly, quirks and issues aside which would be tweaked over time, I can't think of a reason to oppose that other than it's not the way things have traditionally been done.

Because you'd miss out on the bit where the crappiest tail-enders try to bat, which is the most fun part of cricket. Especially in the insanely tight situations.

 

[Somerset]

I have no problem with the officially named 12th man acting as a substitute fielder for genuine injuries and, as they say in tennis, 'comfort breaks'; but when an 'outsider' gets used, not involved in the official squad nor with any real chance of making the playing XI, then I've always believed that shouldn't be permitted. I guess the flaw in that is when a side has two or more genuine injuries and that team only has a 12 man squad named (i.e. for a home test) so my suggestion probably isn't a viable option - but it is one I'd like to see adhered to as often as possible.