Goodbye to runners

[GIMH]

there is another version of the same ..say England is playing India in the first test and a flash news is showing that one of England's top player is injured after toss..who would you rather like that to be Cook or Anderson ?

Neither please

 

[biased indian]

Neither please

ha ha my first example was Zaheer and sachin....i changed them to see how you will respond

 

[biased indian]

I wonder how many years Arjuna Ranatunga's career would've been shortened by if this was the rule? He always adhered to the rule, "No Running". Would've been the darling of the local swimming pool owners.

he was a bad runner always..in fact he used to walk more..but don't remember him using a runner on too many occasions

 

[Somerset]

Pleased to see the rule brought in to prevent runners, was becoming rather farcical and although I see the flaw with genuinely injured players, I feel its a good move on the whole. I also note the alteration to making powerplays mandatory between overs 16 and 40, also a positive change IMO. What I'm not yet convinced about is the use of two balls, one from each end - does the umpire keep the 'other' ball in his pocket whilst the over at the other end is bowled, and then return the ball to the fielding captain 25 times a match?

 

[jan]

First time to hear about runners and a bit confused...

Do I get it right that when a batsman cant run another player takes his place - guy A bats and guy B does the running for him and there is actually 3 batsmen then? The lame one, the running substitute and the healthy one?

 

[Spark]

There are three batsmen on the park, yes. Basically the injured batsman bats (ie. plays the delivery) and the runner runs for him. Can lead to all kinds of confusion with calling and the like (and because the runner is nowhere near the non-striker's usual eyeline)

 

[benchmark00]

First time to hear about runners and a bit confused...

Do I get it right that when a batsman cant run another player takes his place - guy A bats and guy B does the running for him and there is actually 3 batsmen then? The lame one, the running substitute and the healthy one?

Yes. When the injured batsman is on strike the runner will stand at point and run. When he is at the non strikers end he will go and stand at point and not move.

 

[Daemon]

So the two new balls rule will remove the 34 over ball change thing right?

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

No runners is dumb. They might as well get rid of substitute fielders too then.
If you need to go for a crap, tough luck. You lose a fielder.


Just ban runners for muppets with cramp. Simple.

 

[Noble One]

The substitute fielder rule is an interesting point. It is a system that is far more abused than the use of a runner.

 

[Nate]

Would be for injured fielders not getting a replacement either.

 

[Shifter]

Don't understand why people would want rules that punish a team for having an injured player. The fact that cricket already has archiac rules as far as substitutes go is bad enough.

It might not be ideal that some people like Ryder have to get a runner every other game because they are unfit, but its far less ideal in my opinion to create an uneven contest through allowing one team to have more players during a match.

 

[Cruxdude]

So what do people feel about the other rule change.

Batsmen can be dismissed obstructing the field if they change their course while running to prevent a run-out chance

Going to be bloody tough to decide that.

 

[Daemon]

So what do people feel about the other rule change.



Going to be bloody tough to decide that.

Now that is a stupid rule change imo.

 

[Cevno]

That is going to lead to controversy for sure.

Some of these recommendations of the cricket comittee were strange.

 

[Cevno]

Btw, good point being made in commentary on Ten cricket ,if the runners are removed due to wanting better fitness,Then why not ban substitute fielders too?
Let the bowlers get fitter too and let teams field with ten men if somebody wants out. That rule is being abused too.

If you are going to go removing rules ,then remove both of them.

 

[Cruxdude]

Btw, good point being made in commentary on Ten cricket ,if the runners are removed due to wanting better fitness,Then why not ban substitute fielders too?
Let the bowlers get fitter too and let teams field with ten men if somebody wants out. That rule is being abused too.

If you are going to go removing rules ,then remove both of them.

AWTA
z

 

[zaremba]

So what do people feel about the other rule change.

Batsmen can be dismissed obstructing the field if they change their course while running to prevent a run-out chance

Going to be bloody tough to decide that.

There was a really clear example of this in an English T20 game televised on Sky last night. Lou Vincent clearly changed direction - veered off his course and then ran diagonally across the pitch - to obstruct the throw and escape being run out. (To add insult to injury, the ball hit him and went for 4 overthrows.) Even though it was my team batting, it seemed bloody obvious to me that it was cheating. I don't think there should be a need for a rule change. Just give the batsman out for obstructing the field, which is obviously what he was doing.

 

[Cevno]

They could do that pretty much under the existing rules ,can't they if the opposing team appeal?

 

[zaremba]

They could do that pretty much under the existing rules ,can't they if the opposing team appeal?

That's what I'm saying. Not sure anyone ever does, or if they do why no umpire ever gives them out.