Goodbye to runners

[Top_Cat]

Can imagine, aside from that it's so hard to prove intent for sure, it's because it's far from settled whether getting in the way of the throw should be penalised. On the anti side, it's obstruction/cheating. On the pro-side, the batter's risking injury so there's that element of bravery/foolhardiness.

Changes, of course, if a batter uses his bat to block a throw. It's really the same thing but because he's not putting his body on the line, people are more apt to want to see that punished.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What about the effect on spinners? I know the age of T20s have adapted them to bowling with the new ball, but the practise isn't going to get any fillip with this rule change imho.

Don't think it'll be a huge issue, spinners don't mind using newish balls. It's just that when it is completely brand new, it can be difficult to grip. After a few overs (even only one or two on an abrasive pitch), it can be great to use because of a bit of extra bounce and a hard seam.

 

[Debris]

Don't think it'll be a huge issue, spinners don't mind using newish balls. It's just that when it is completely brand new, it can be difficult to grip. After a few overs (even only one or two on an abrasive pitch), it can be great to use because of a bit of extra bounce and a hard seam.

Plus the game has swung too much in favour of spinners anyway. Time to give the quicks a helping hand and it might help get rid of non-specialist spinners who are a plague on the game.

 

[vcs]

Commentators always praise batsmen who get in the way of the throw for being brave and smart, don't they? I never knew it counted as obstructing the field.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

I think there was a quite famous incident where Ian Healy told him, "You don't get a runner for being a fat, lazy ****!".

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the substitute rule...needs fixing first I reckon. Not sure how I forgot considering it England used it to give a number of their players the first shower they'd had in 18 months. Quickly followed by their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th showers.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think there was a quite famous incident where Ian Healy told him, "You don't get a runner for being a fat, lazy ****!".

"....unfit, fat ****!" I believe is the exact quote.

Ian Healy, master orator and ambassador.

 

[TumTum]

If you're injured, you shouldn't bat. Not only is it hard to watch when runners are on the field but a batsman plays a different game as well. Good move imo.

 

[Spikey]

Commentators always praise batsmen who get in the way of the throw for being brave and smart, don't they? I never knew it counted as obstructing the field.

I don't think it could have, hence the rule change. As for being hard to police...well if for most of the run you're running up the edge of the pitch and all of a sudden you are running diagonally towards the stumps...A nice rule change.

 

[Cevno]

As i said before that one is surely bound to cause controversy and why was there a need to change the rule too?
As i think even under the existing laws the batsman could have been given out obstructing the field or going against the spirit of the game if the fielding team appealed.

 

[Spikey]

Currently, batsmen are allowed to come in between a throw and the stumps, though they are disallowed from purposefully obstructing a fielder from collecting, catching or throwing a bal

.

 

[Cevno]

Currently, batsmen are allowed to come in between a throw and the stumps, though they are disallowed from purposefully obstructing a fielder from collecting, catching or throwing a ball

Pretty sure i have seen batsman given out obstructing the field. Inzamam was when he tried to protect his body with the bat famously.

In any case the current rule change will be bloody hard to prove, and is surely gonna cause controversies and umpires can interpret in differently.

 

[Howe_zat]

Really don't think it's going to cause much difference at all.

 

[Spikey]

Currently, batsmen are allowed to come in between a throw and the stumps, though they are disallowed from purposefully obstructing a fielder from collecting, catching or throwing a ball

But not purposing getting in the way of the ball while running. Inzamam wasn't really running, and he used the bat. This rule change is intended to stop batsmen who are running and change direction towards the stumps with the intention of blocking the stumps with their body, but not with the bat. It used to be a grey area at least. It now isn't. And that's a good thing.

 

[Furball]

Currently, batsmen are allowed to come in between a throw and the stumps, though they are disallowed from purposefully obstructing a fielder from collecting, catching or throwing a ball

Pretty sure i have seen batsman given out obstructing the field. Inzamam was when he tried to protect his body with the bat famously.

In any case the current rule change will be bloody hard to prove, and is surely gonna cause controversies and umpires can interpret in differently.

Inzamam was standing out of his crease and prevented a possible run out by hitting the ball with the bat, that's about as blatant a case of obstructing the field as there is.

 

[benchmark00]

Inzamam was standing out of his crease and prevented a possible run out by hitting the ball with the bat, that's about as blatant a case of obstructing the field as there is.

Errr not really, because if he got his bat out of the way it would have hit his body and no run out would have occured. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good overstatement though.

 

[Spikey]

And it's a pretty large body!

 

[Top_Cat]

Sometimes what appears a deliberate obstruction can be a reflex move under pressure when you're about to get pinged with a hard ball.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah. If you have a bat in your hand and you're confronted with a high speed, hard ball coming for you it's just human instinct to put it up.

 

[weldone]

Pretty sure i have seen batsman given out obstructing the field. Inzamam was when he tried to protect his body with the bat famously.

Ha ha, clearly remember Inzamam was part of two different incidents in two consecutive series (the last one was against India).

In the first, as you said the ball was moving towrads the stumps and Inzamam was clearly falling short of his crease. First, he tried to take his body in between, but then within a split second realizing how painful it will be if the fast throw hit his body he used his bat to fend the ball, and was given out obstructing the field.

He was very careful not to repeat the same mistake again. Against India, he was easily reaching his crease before the ball hit the stumps. Just after his bat touched the crease (while his body was outside) he realized that the throw was coming towards his bat. Don't know what he thought at that moment (he was definitely thinking about the previous dismissal, but don't know how he interpreted it), but he took his bat in the air, letting the ball slowly hit the stumps and was given run out.

During the post-match presentation, he said something in the lines of "I don't understand how these rules work. Last time, I was given out because the ball hit the bat, and this time I was given out because I removed the bat from the ball's path."

It was hillarious to listen to him at that point in time Inzamam was a **** runner, a worse judge of a run, and even worse when it came to situations like that.