Do you care about over rates enough to support penalties?

[Spikey]

When was the last 60 over day? (non rain affected)

But if a team wanted to deliberately drag their feet to get the result they need, a match ban for the next match and a fine pretty clearly isn't a deterrent. On the final day, we have the rule that says the overs will be bowled no matter how long it takes, but that rule doesn't apply on days 1 to 4.

 

[cnerd123]

But if a team wanted to deliberately drag their feet to get the result they need, a match ban for the next match and a fine pretty clearly isn't a deterrent.

Ageeed, sounds like you support docking WTC points then!

Dragging your feet to get the 4 points for a draw could lead to you losing points instead.

 

[SteveNZ]

Over rates are something commentators and other media seem to care about far more than fans ever have, and I suspect fans only do because they're told to.

I don't really know why though, but if I had to guess I'd say sooking about over rates is tied to the commentator having to work half an hour extra when he'd rather be at the local. Over rates have very little impact on the spectator or the viewer.

Can only speak for myself when I say I care greatly. Frustrates the **** out of me to not get an amount of overs that I paid for, either as a spectator at the ground or on SKY. If I go to let's say the first day's play - I want to see a second new ball at the end of the day where they get 10 overs or so to wrestle momentum back or whatever it is. We got 4 on day 2, that was mud.

I don't support WTC points being docked (unless it's Tim Paine) but 100% in support of anything else punitive that might help push things along.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I don't support WTC points being docked (unless it's Tim Paine) but 100% in support of anything else punitive that might help push things along.

Isn’t that part of the problem though? No previous punishment seems to actually work so they’ve gone hard in.

 

[SteveNZ]

Isn’t that part of the problem though? No previous punishment seems to actually work so they’ve gone hard in.

Yeah, you might be right. I feel like the punishment outweighs the crime, however. If I'm Australia, I'm spewing that one Test of a sub-par over rate cost us a spot in the final (you know, plus losing at home to India 1.5) if it wasn't a massive ongoing issue for them.

I dunno what the punishment is, but given so many people feel over rates are vastly over-rated (boom), it feels overly punitive to take away WTC points.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I look forward to the Sri Lanka v Bangladesh final because everyone else was disqualified for slow over rate

 

[Burgey]

I suppose the issue in this particular case is England was basically a full hour behind. We aren't talking about 85 or 86 overs in a day where 90 was scheduled. They were meant to bowl 98 and bowled something like 85. That's pretty ordinary tstl. 80s WI levels of taking the piss.

I still probably wouldn't dock them points, and certainly not to the extent they were taken off them, but there can be no doubt that as with so many other issues, Joe Root certainly has questions to answer over this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Joe Root certainly has questions to answer over this.

Add it to the list

 

[SteveNZ]

I suppose the issue in this particular case is England was basically a full hour behind. We aren't talking about 85 or 86 overs in a day where 90 was scheduled. They were meant to bowl 98 and bowled something like 85. That's pretty ordinary tstl. 80s WI levels of taking the piss.

I still probably wouldn't dock them points, and certainly not to the extent they were taken off them, but there can be no doubt that as with so many other issues, Joe Root certainly has questions to answer over this.

This is true. Obviously Australia played them like a fiddle, smashing Leach around so they were forced to bowl the seamers into the ground. Regardless, you'd expect to be able to bowl a bit faster with the seamers they had, and Root himself as well.

To lose 5 points, just under the same points for a Test win, seems insane, however. I understand they're trying to be punitive, but after Australia missed out on a final because of it, it clearly hasn't sunk in or it's too hard to do.

 

[mackembhoy]

Over rates are something commentators and other media seem to care about far more than fans ever have, and I suspect fans only do because they're told to.

I don't really know why though, but if I had to guess I'd say sooking about over rates is tied to the commentator having to work half an hour extra when he'd rather be at the local. Over rates have very little impact on the spectator or the viewer.

I definitely fell into this mindset.

It's ridiculous that fines are handed out when a game finishes in less than 4 days anyway.

If had been the Aussies I wouldn't have even noticed they'd bowled less than 90. Unless the commentators piped up about. I would have thought them being fined was stupid.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Frustrates the **** out of me to not get an amount of overs that I paid for, either as a spectator at the ground or on SKY.

I smell a new subscription model.

 

[SteveNZ]

I smell a new subscription model.

Bloody oath. I'll pay based on overs completed. It rains, I pay nothing. I pay more for Tests, and happy to do so.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Haha, it'll end up being you pay per over in advance during the match itself, prices will vary based on "peak times" i.e the game getting interesting. I can totally see this happening in future with some kind of loot box mechanism to hook people in.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

PS to any network people reading this I am trademarking this idea.

DO NOT STEAL

 

[wellAlbidarned]

"great idea jim. where'd you find it?"

"some guy on the internet who claims to be the crotch protection for the 3rd best NZ batsman of all time"

 

[Himannv]

Let em take all the time they need. I'll watch.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Let em take all the time they need. I'll watch.

Posted in the wrong forum I think.

 

[thierry henry]

I don't really get why you wouldn't care? I'm a cricket fan so I want to watch cricket. We're getting less cricket than we should in the time that we spend watching it. That's bad.

Also, over rates used to be massively better than they are now, and now we just accept that they are basically slow across the board. Everyone in the field doing everything super slowly now is like a fixture of cricket culture. Wouldn't it be better if it wasn't like this?

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah. I feel like people don't care nearly as much as they should.

Looking at studies of how long the ball is in play or action is on in sport now, the trend is that it's less and less. I don't think we need to stand by and accept that's part of a sport that we pay more and more for.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't really get why you wouldn't care? I'm a cricket fan so I want to watch cricket. We're getting less cricket than we should in the time that we spend watching it. That's bad.

You're missing that it might be better cricket. Is it really worth getting a few more overs in a day if it's bowled by **** part-time spinners instead of a world-class fast bowler? That's bad.