Runners should be banned - becoming rather farcical

[deeps]

runners arent a big problem IMO, they rarely come on so i wouldn't take too much into it..

One thing i have a problem is the 12th man. I believe the 12th man, should be picked by the OPPOSITION captain, from whoever is available on the playing squad that is not injured and not playing.

Atm, we have a situation where, a lousy fielder (inzi) can come off, and be replaced by a brilliant fielder like shahid afridi. Inzi could use any excuse he wants "my foot hurts" and come off, and pakistan have gained an unfair advantage.

If tehre is a touring squad of 16 players, and only 11 partaking the match, the opposition captain should pick the 12th man. I feel this is the only fair way to do it, to avoid giving the team a huge advantage.. It may still give the team an advantage, but a much lesser one.

If for the current rules, i would always have a gun fielder as 12th man, as it doesn't require much skill to bring out drinks.

 

[deeps]

also, i don't believe dehydration, muscle pulls etc. should be a reason for allowing a runner. The only reason is if say the batsman is struck by the ball, or soemthing external.


If he pulls a muscle or is dehydrated, it's coz he's not fit enough and that's his problem.. he can retire hurt, but not bat with a runner. though batting with a runner is a big disadvantage imo.

 

[SJS]

Are you kidding? So many people complain about the runner rule. Adam Gilchrist in the recent test series against Australia stated that he thinks runners should be driven out of the game, after the Kaif incident during the 2nd test. His reason wasn't directly related to Kaif's dehydration, but his general dislike for it. Off the top of my head I can't think of many other people who have complained by name, but many people in the media and players have shown their dislike for the rule.

When I said no one complains, I did not mean litrally ZERO but it is really a non isssue. Try and think how many times you may have heard such a complaint. It really hasnt been an issue in cricket.

If we are going to take one or two instances then there have been so many complaints on so many things its not even funny. But this has never been a serious issue.

 

[SJS]

also, i don't believe dehydration, muscle pulls etc. should be a reason for allowing a runner. The only reason is if say the batsman is struck by the ball, or soemthing external.


If he pulls a muscle or is dehydrated, it's coz he's not fit enough and that's his problem.. he can retire hurt, but not bat with a runner. though batting with a runner is a big disadvantage imo.

I fully agree that dehydration while playing isnt an issue. But there have been cases of players coming from a sick bed in high fever to try and save a game, surely depriving them of a runner would deprive the game of some of its real cherished moments.

But allowing for frivolous or minor reasons shouldnt be allowed.

I also feel a player should be allowed to retire if unwell rather than give a runner but then that has other implications of getting rest etc.

Allowing the fielding captain to decide when he can come back is one solution.

 

[Sehwag309]

13

..."Jawani Deewani"

SJS forgot to mention 13 Light Years

 

[deeps]

I fully agree that dehydration while playing isnt an issue. But there have been cases of players coming from a sick bed in high fever to try and save a game, surely depriving them of a runner would deprive the game of some of its real cherished moments.

But allowing for frivolous or minor reasons shouldnt be allowed.

I also feel a player should be allowed to retire if unwell rather than give a runner but then that has other implications of getting rest etc.

Allowing the fielding captain to decide when he can come back is one solution.

well high fever is different to dehydration. but even a high fever, if you are alert and physically able to face deliveries coming at well over 140kph, then you should be able to run as well... maybe your running will be hampered, but alas, can't have everythign your way

 

[Jono]

When I said no one complains, I did not mean litrally ZERO but it is really a non isssue. Try and think how many times you may have heard such a complaint. It really hasnt been an issue in cricket.

If we are going to take one or two instances then there have been so many complaints on so many things its not even funny. But this has never been a serious issue.

That doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be fixed. Obviously its not as big as chucking, umpiring mistakes and technology etc, but I believe that there is a strong case for runners being wiped out of our game. Its not brought up/argued as often because it rarely changes the course of a match as a dodgy LBW decision or a nick that was missed by the umpire etc. But if a player gets injured at say 30, gets a runner, and goes on to hit a match winning century for his team, questions will be asked I guarantee you. Maybe for bitter reasons, but just because they are bitter doesn't mean they are necessarily 'wrong'.

I'm not 100% against runners, but I do think there is a very strong case against the rule. Bowlers don't get any help from a third party do they?

 

[SJS]

That doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be fixed. Obviously its not as big as chucking, umpiring mistakes and technology etc, but I believe that there is a strong case for runners being wiped out of our game. Its not brought up/argued as often because it rarely changes the course of a match as a dodgy LBW decision or a nick that was missed by the umpire etc. But if a player gets injured at say 30, gets a runner, and goes on to hit a match winning century for his team, questions will be asked I guarantee you. Maybe for bitter reasons, but just because they are bitter doesn't mean they are necessarily 'wrong'.

I'm not 100% against runners, but I do think there is a very strong case against the rule. Bowlers don't get any help from a third party do they?

You make it sound as if bowlers and batsmen are two different teams.

Batsmen from both sides gain from this rule. So if a complaint has to come against the law it cant come after the event. People have to complain in general rather than after they have suffered on account of the rule.

Every one knows the rule exists and still there isnt any big hullabaloo against it. If players in general agree they dont want it, it should go. It is a level field for everyone with or without the rule.

 

[Jono]

And as I've said, rules are commonly most challenged and complained about in retrospect when it has a large affect on a match, and is palpable that there is a problem. It doesn't mean its right, but that's how it works. Just because there hasn't been mass attention to it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be suggested that the rule be changed. And your sarcastic post above suggests that this thread is ridiculous, when it is quite far from it. People believe some rules should be changed/modified, and just because there hasn't been a mass backlash against those rules doesn't mean that we as fans shouldn't discuss possible changes.

Rules in sport are often like common law/case-law in many legal systems. The issue will be resolved in retrospect when the problem blatantly arises. This recently happened with the Australian Football League here in Australia, our own football code, whereby ruckman (people jumping to tap the ball, like in basketball) were constantly getting knee injuries when leaping and clashing, and the rules had to be changed. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, but what if the laws were changed 10 years ago? A few players may still be playing the game instead of having to retire due to knee problems. Same case here, except replace injury for equity.

 

[Swervy]

surely if the opposition captain doesnt think the situation warrents a runner, then I beleive he is well within his rights to refuse to allow a runner, whatever the circumstances.

I dont have any problems with the runner rule to be honest..if a batsman has blatantly hoaxed an injury or some ailment (why would he really), and he has been found out, then he should receive some sort of punishment, other than that, no problem

Th erule maybe be a throw back from the times of fair play, but I really dont thnk its a big enough issue to warrant any further action..its just a thing that is a bit of good sportsmanship and I think it would be a shame to see it go

 

[xan_pro]

i really admire tendulkar. he bats without a runner whatever the situation demands. great!!

 

[Mister Wright]

runners arent a big problem IMO, they rarely come on so i wouldn't take too much into it..

One thing i have a problem is the 12th man. I believe the 12th man, should be picked by the OPPOSITION captain, from whoever is available on the playing squad that is not injured and not playing.

Atm, we have a situation where, a lousy fielder (inzi) can come off, and be replaced by a brilliant fielder like shahid afridi. Inzi could use any excuse he wants "my foot hurts" and come off, and pakistan have gained an unfair advantage.

If tehre is a touring squad of 16 players, and only 11 partaking the match, the opposition captain should pick the 12th man. I feel this is the only fair way to do it, to avoid giving the team a huge advantage.. It may still give the team an advantage, but a much lesser one.

If for the current rules, i would always have a gun fielder as 12th man, as it doesn't require much skill to bring out drinks.

Even better, the 12th man isn't allowed to field. Problem solved.

 

[marc71178]

Because in no other sport can you replace an injured player with someone outside of the team. If a rugby league player gets injured, you can't tell the 18th player to chuck the gear on and sit on the bench, the team has to survive with 17 players.

No, but in Rugby League there are 13 on the pitch at any one time and 4 reserves, it's not 17 all playing at once.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, but in Rugby League there are 13 on the pitch at any one time and 4 reserves, it's not 17 all playing at once.

Read my post Marc. In Rugby League you have substitues, but you can't replace injured players into the team who weren't selected. Take Canberra for example earlier in the season, they had 4 players injured at one stage in the game meaning they had nobody to substitute for the players on the park, yet the had the courage to get up and win.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me in cricket, that a player can go into a game only 80% fit, get injured on the first day and then a guy who wasn't selected gets to run around in the field for 4 days (if the game lasts that long). The other team is being disadvantaged.

 

[Swervy]

Read my post Marc. In Rugby League you have substitues, but you can't replace injured players into the team who weren't selected. Take Canberra for example earlier in the season, they had 4 players injured at one stage in the game meaning they had nobody to substitute for the players on the park, yet the had the courage to get up and win.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me in cricket, that a player can go into a game only 80% fit, get injured on the first day and then a guy who wasn't selected gets to run around in the field for 4 days (if the game lasts that long). The other team is being disadvantaged.

but you cant ask for a runner for an injury that you got before the game started

 

[Mister Wright]

but you cant ask for a runner for an injury that you got before the game started

How many times have you seen teams get around that?

 

[marc71178]

It seems a bit ridiculous to me in cricket, that a player can go into a game only 80% fit, get injured on the first day and then a guy who wasn't selected gets to run around in the field for 4 days (if the game lasts that long). The other team is being disadvantaged.

But it's OK in other sports for someone to be selected when 80%, be injured in the first 10 minutes and replaced?

 

[Top_Cat]

Not allowing a runner for a batsman who's obviously dehydrated is stupid. Yes they could go off retired hurt but then again, so could an injured batsman. So if the decision is made to stay on due to the state of the game, a batsman who's dehydrated should be allowed a runner. If you're talking seriousness of the injury, well geez people have died from dehydration but no-one I know of has ever died from a pulled/torn hammie. Yet people want to allow a runner for one but not the other??

The 'bowlers have to keep bowlnig through pain' argument is erroneous too. If a bowler is injured/dehydrated, they can take a break from the attack whereas a batsman has to keep going or go off, thereby retiring hurt which they can't come back from when they want to (i.e. they have to wait for a wicket to fall).

All I've heard from here is the advantage that batsmen get from runners but geez, it gets mighty confusing out there. I've heard of and seen FAR more instances where the runner has caused enough confusion to result in a run-out than I have of batting teams getting some sort of unfair advantage.

 

[Mister Wright]

But it's OK in other sports for someone to be selected when 80%, be injured in the first 10 minutes and replaced?

Name one sport where they can.

 

[deeps]

Name one sport where they can.

most other sports that you mentioned, rugby, basket ball etc. have a bench...

take basket ball for example, there are 5 ppl on the court, and a bench of reserves. So if someone on the court gets injured he comes off, and someone that was on the bench comes on.

What if a serious injury occurs out on the field, for example simon jones doing his knee on the first day of a test match, and steve waugh/jason gillespie collision. If you've ever played cricket in your life, and had one less fielder, you will know how big a disadvantage this is.

A replacement fielder is a must, and it is allowed in almost every team sport. Name one team sport that

1) Does not have a bench
2) Does not allow replacement players

and the only one i can remotely think off is volley ball, and i think even volleyball has a bench.