ICC - New Recommendations for the Game

[bhooth nath]

only the last one is a good idea. other ideas are a total joke.

 

[Craig]

1/ No, one run out at one end is enough
2/ Batsmen dont usually run when it comes off the bat, so what's the point?
3/ Most definatly not!
4/ No. I would rather have the first 15 overs first up to try and then stop the bleeding from any potential wounds if the side gets off to a flyer. Its easier to cope with and it is out of the way.
5/ Worth a shot

 

[V Reddy]

1/ No, one run out at one end is enough
2/ Batsmen dont usually run when it comes off the bat, so what's the point?
3/ Most definatly not!
4/ No. I would rather have the first 15 overs first up to try and then stop the bleeding from any potential wounds if the side gets off to a flyer. Its easier to cope with and it is out of the way.
5/ Worth a shot

2) Bowlers didn't used to bowl underarm too but the Chappels started it and we all know how big a controversy it became. The same thing could happen now in a tight situation. I don't know how you guys could term it as a joke

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

2/ Batsmen dont usually run when it comes off the bat, so what's the point?

Though it needs to be implemented in the cricket laws as what happens if a ball hits the bat, but the batsman runs knowing that possibly he could win his side the World Cup etc.

 

[Mister Wright]

2) Bowlers didn't used to bowl underarm too but the Chappels started it and we all know how big a controversy it became. The same thing could happen now in a tight situation. I don't know how you guys could term it as a joke

But, batsman can run when there the ball comes off the stumps after a direct hit, I don't see the difference if it comes of the bat. The most famous example was when Australia last toured Zimbabwe and Neil Johnson was on 98 and he took a quick single the ball came off the bat and he took the extra run for his hundred and Damien Fleming blew up in the typical Victorian way. Should he have been denied the run? I don't think so. Just leave it to one of those things that happens in cricket.

 

[V Reddy]

But, batsman can run when there the ball comes off the stumps after a direct hit, I don't see the difference if it comes of the bat. The most famous example was when Australia last toured Zimbabwe and Neil Johnson was on 98 and he took a quick single the ball came off the bat and he took the extra run for his hundred and Damien Fleming blew up in the typical Victorian way. Should he have been denied the run? I don't think so. Just leave it to one of those things that happens in cricket.

Sometimes the batsman may do it intentionally too in the face of crucial juncture of a game which could cause controversy. There certainly would have been a controversy if the same incident you mentioned had happ in a 1 ball 2 run type situation. It hasn't happened that way yet but you never know. So imo it is better to implement a law before than after the damage has been done

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sometimes the batsman may do it intentionally too in the face of crucial juncture of a game which could cause controversy. There certainly would have been a controversy if the same incident you mentioned had happ in a 1 ball 2 run type situation. It hasn't happened that way yet but you never know. So imo it is better to implement a law before than after the damage has been done

If the batsman does it intentionally, surely it's out for obstructing the field?

 

[marc71178]

But, batsman can run when there the ball comes off the stumps after a direct hit, I don't see the difference if it comes of the bat.

A Direct Hit is superb fielding, so shouldn't be penalised?

 

[chicane]

A Direct Hit is superb fielding, so shouldn't be penalised?

But here the fielder is taking a chance to try and get the batsman out. It's a gamble taken by the fielder.

 

[marc71178]

But here the fielder is taking a chance to try and get the batsman out. It's a gamble taken by the fielder.

Yes, and why should he be penalised for hitting the stumps?

IMO it should be dead ball when that happens - clears up a lot of problems.

 

[Mister Wright]

Sometimes the batsman may do it intentionally too in the face of crucial juncture of a game which could cause controversy. There certainly would have been a controversy if the same incident you mentioned had happ in a 1 ball 2 run type situation. It hasn't happened that way yet but you never know. So imo it is better to implement a law before than after the damage has been done

But, Johnson didn't do it intentially, he was grounding his bat going for his 99th run.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yes, and why should he be penalised for hitting the stumps?

IMO it should be dead ball when that happens - clears up a lot of problems.

Yes, I agree. I would agree with the dead ball off the bat, if there was a dead ball of the stumps. But I don't agree with one, and not the other.

 

[biased indian]

Yes, and why should he be penalised for hitting the stumps?

IMO it should be dead ball when that happens - clears up a lot of problems.

if the feilder is good enough then the batsmen is out.
other wise he will have to suffer

 

[marc71178]

Some throws are never going to beat the batsmen, but why should such accuracy be penalised?!