ICC - New Recommendations for the Game

[Sehwag309]

Why is this not detailed in Cricinfo? Or am I missing something?

ICC Official Website

 

[marc71178]

Disallow overthrows resulting from the ball hitting the batsman, and only allowing overthrows when the ball hits the stumps

People should be penalised for inaccurate throws. Even thinking this one shows the ICC has truly gone to the dogs..

I think that the idea is only talking about deflections there - still allow it for wild throws, but if it hits the batsman it is a bit harsh on the fielding side!

 

[marc71178]

I think they all are crap ideas beside #1

Care to share with us as to why?

 

[biased indian]

all but one is good (12 player format)

 

[Sudeep]

all but one is good (12 player format)

I think you're the first one who has actually not spoken against the 15 overs rule.

Can you explain why that rule is worth experimenting?

 

[Sudeep]

I think they all are crap ideas beside #1

Ok let me get this right.

This rule would mean that if a striker batsman is adjudged LBW, and if they are on the run, the non-striker could be run out.

How the hell is that a good idea?

Let's not bring elements from some other game in cricket. This rule suits baseball, let it stay there.

 

[Sudeep]

I think only two of the rules are based on logic.

2nd and 5th.

While 2nd is being already followed by most batsmen, making it official would only be a formality.

5th is the most logical rule of all.

While this thread states only 5 rules, there are 2 other.

- No re-toss or side changes for a match played on a reserve day from the original day.
- Abandoned matches, without a ball being ball, will also go in to the record books.

While the first one is good, I'm not sure there's any need for the second one.

 

[biased indian]

I think you're the first one who has actually not spoken against the 15 overs rule.

Can you explain why that rule is worth experimenting?

Fist of all the game will be more intresting because ther will be more uncertain element involved like when will the batting team use the 15 overs

i personally think that the teams should be give the chance to use the 15 overs in set of 3 5 overs.

with which we will see the spinners coming into bowl early if the batting team choose not to use the sets at the begining.

in a game where there is over cast condition at begining the team could choose to not use it at the begining and use at the end

and many more the options ? game would be more intresteing i HOPE so

 

[anzac]

Ok let me get this right.

This rule would mean that if a striker batsman is adjudged LBW, and if they are on the run, the non-striker could be run out.

How the hell is that a good idea?

Let's not bring elements from some other game in cricket. This rule suits baseball, let it stay there.

can you imagine the confusion when batting with a runner???????

 

[tooextracool]

can you imagine the confusion when batting with a runner???????

they should ban runners....hate it when players like inzy have runners like afridi

 

[a massive zebra]

they should ban runners....hate it when players like inzy have runners like afridi

What if the batsman is genuinely injured though. Its not his fault and he should not be disadvantaged for it. All the suggestions are crazy and will ruin the game.

 

[tooextracool]

What if the batsman is genuinely injured though. Its not his fault and he should not be disadvantaged for it. All the suggestions are crazy and will ruin the game.

if hes injured he shouldnt be batting out there AFAIC....its just ridiculous to see a fresh player come out and run for someone whos been batting out there for 2 hrs.

 

[Langeveldt]

I like the double play idea. and of course when a ball hits the stumps its ludicrous that the batsman can gain more runs out of it!!! But apart from that, hands of the game ICC... Go and sort yourselves out first..

 

[ReallyCrazy]

1) 2 batters getting out on a single ball. Hmmm that will be very interesting.

2) No

3) No

4) the 15 overs with field restrictions should be divided into blocks of 5 each. And it should be the bowling side which decides when to bowl these overs.

5) sure

 

[marc71178]

I like the double play idea. and of course when a ball hits the stumps its ludicrous that the batsman can gain more runs out of it!!!

Why?

A team should be backing up properly.

 

[roseboy64]

One rule for Test cricket that should be implemented is the one on substitutes.If a guy starts the match but gets injured and cannot take further part in the game what happens?The substitute only fields for him.He can't bat or bowl.This just hampers a side as they may be a bowler or batsman down who is a mainstay in their plans.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

One rule for Test cricket that should be implemented is the one on substitutes.If a guy starts the match but gets injured and cannot take further part in the game what happens?The substitute only fields for him.He can't bat or bowl.This just hampers a side as they may be a bowler or batsman down who is a mainstay in their plans.

I have to disagree with you on that one.

The substitute was not picked in the starting side and therefore should not be allowed to bat or bowl. Imagine also how confusing it would be working out stats etc.

 

[marc71178]

As well as "dodgy" injuries...

 

[luckyeddie]

I have to disagree with you on that one.

The substitute was not picked in the starting side and therefore should not be allowed to bat or bowl. Imagine also how confusing it would be working out stats etc.

I KNEW I'd pontificated (well, DD had) on this matter before.Friday, 23 May, 2003

Dear Diary :

Question : When do twelve go exactly into eleven?
Answer : When you are nearly a test cricketer.

Yesterday, the cricketing world was stunned to a duck when the news broke of the erstwhile one-day international seamer of questionable action and current England squad reject James Kirtley slamming his way to a glorious ton for Sussex against Nottinghamshire at Horsham. The only problem was, shortly earlier he was there for all the world to see, standing on the balcony at Lord's watching the highlights of the first coin-toss between England and Zimbabwe (see yesterday's Diary).

This, thought I, deserved further investigation. So I did just that - thought about investigating it. The conclusion I came to was too terrible to contemplate, but it was there for all to see. I checked on Ananova, I checked on Cricinfo, I checked on any other news source I could care to mention - R J Kirtley 103 not out. The proof was there - I realised that 'Dolly the Sheep' was the first tottering step along the slippery slope towards - yes, you've guessed it - CLONING OF CRICKETERS.

'Jurassic Park' started it all off. When Michael Crichton wrote the novel, did he contemplate the possibility that the monsters at Sussex County Cricket Club would take his words literally and keep Kirtley's toenail clippings for their own, sinister purpose? How could we all have been so blind?

Cast your mind back a couple of years to when India won the famous test against Australia after following on. That magnificent innings of 270-odd by VVS Laxman. Remember what everyone said? "Just like Tendulkar.". Then last season in India when Rahul Dravid slammed the ball to all parts all summer long? "Just like Tendulkar." Ask Leicestershire what they think of Sehwag. "Just like Tendulkar." INDIA HAVE BEEN CLONING BATSMEN FOR YEARS!

In search of further proof, I looked at England. James Anderson? Corky! Matthew Hoggard? Corky again!. Andrew Flintoff? Corky with a few extra burgers and a pizza thrown in. So much for that theory. Why use Corky and not Botham - or Grace even? There must be a few beard hairs stuck down the side of a chair in the Long Room. Maybe it wasn't cloning after all, but I knew I was on the right track. Possibly the ECB are just being careful - those devils are clever, you know. I checked again - R J Kirtley 103 not out.

There just wasn't time to get out of Lord's, in to the car, pay the congestion charge and drive down to Horsham AND score a hundred. Besides, this is James Kirtley we are talking about here, so let's just hang in with the cloning theory a little longer.

The 'real' Kirtkey - let's call him 'Kirtley' to avoid confusion - gets to Horsham and tries to gain admittance to the ground. The attendant guarding the entrance to the players' car park asks him "Where do you think you're going?"
"Afternoon Fred." replies Kirtley. "Looks like rain."
Fred looks him up and down suspiciously, looks at the scoreboard, sees the legend 'R J Kirtley 103*'. He checks again. He rings his boss. "How many runs has Kirtley scored?".
The head of security at Horsham, also called Fred, misunderstands and spends half an hour trying to log on to Cricinfo (as usual) and pulls up this season's analysis for R J Kirtley. He sees that his aggregate for this season is, coincidentally, 103. "103" calls back Herr Oberleutnent Fred to Fred.

Fred goes back to Kirtley's car. "Good to see you again, Mr Innes." You see? Cloning.

Footnote : Under ECB regulations this season, a player returning from test match duty to his county can, if returning before the end of the second day, take the place of a PREVIOUSLY-NOMINATED player and become, in effect, a member of the starting XI.

 

[Craig]

As well as "dodgy" injuries...

Which is an independant doctor not involved with both sides and if possible not from the two countries that are playing (ie an English doctor at a Test in Brisbane in between Australia and South Africa) is preferable or up to the match referee if you can get an indepenant doctor in.