Runners should be banned - becoming rather farcical

[Mister Wright]

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.

You don't seem to understand. Basketball & football may have a bench, but if somebody from the team gets injured you can't bring someone not selected in the team in the team into the game. That is effectively what happens in cricket.

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.

I don't know how many times I have to say this to make it clear. When someone gets injured in a Rugby League game, even if it is in the first tackle, the team is then left with 16, not 17. If you were to allow rugby league to have an 18th man and equate it to cricket, they would be allowed on the field to tackle only and can't touch the ball - a bit stupid. If cricket were to have a 'bench' then fair enough, but they don't.

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.

A replacement fielder isn't a 'must'. If a player gets injured too bad, live with it, they have to in other sports, why should cricket be any different?

 

[marc71178]

Name one sport where they can.

Football
Rugby (both codes)

That's just a start.

 

[marc71178]

You don't seem to understand. Basketball & football may have a bench, but if somebody from the team gets injured you can't bring someone not selected in the team in the team into the game. That is effectively what happens in cricket.

The 12th man is part of the team though.

 

[deeps]

You don't seem to understand. Basketball & football may have a bench, but if somebody from the team gets injured you can't bring someone not selected in the team in the team into the game. That is effectively what happens in cricket.

the point i'm making is that on the court of play there will still be 5 players, so there is no perceived disadvantage to a team with an injured player. same in rugby, football etc etc. When a player is injured, the bench is used to swap a player.

If a team has to field with 10 players, there is a big disadvantage, as opposed to in a basket ball match, where the only disadvantage is less men on the bench, which means players get more tired.

 

[deeps]

The 12th man is part of the team though.

exactly... but sometimes even more ppl, ie 13th man, 14th man etc. end up on the field... but that should be allowed.

my solution is the opposition captain lists who is 12th man, then 13th in order of what they feel is right. This takes away the advantage of india having say, mohammed kaif as 12th man, replacing ganguly or nehra when they are off the field.

 

[vvk]

deeps is right, there is rampant abuse of the system at the moment. Most batsman that get a 100 in the first innings of an ODI take it for granted that they can say off the field for a certain period...really is unacceptable.

 

[Swervy]

I cant even remember the last time I saw a runner in an international match

 

[Nate]

I completely agree. Runners should be banned.

 

[Jono]

I cant even remember the last time I saw a runner in an international match

Almost positive there was one in the most recent VB Series. Then you go back to Kaif having a runner in the most recent Aus vs. Ind test series. 2nd test match.

I don't know if you were making that comment because you really don't know, or were using it to imply that the runner issue isn't very important in our game, but either way those times I've mentioned are recent.

 

[Swervy]

Almost positive there was one in the most recent VB Series. Then you go back to Kaif having a runner in the most recent Aus vs. Ind test series. 2nd test match.

I don't know if you were making that comment because you really don't know, or were using it to imply that the runner issue isn't very important in our game, but either way those times I've mentioned are recent.

i said that coz i really cant remember when i last saw one

 

[Jono]

Well I remember the Kaif indicent in the 2nd test against Australia very well. He came back with a runner after retiring hurt (due to dehydration) after 9 wickets had fallen. After hitting a 4, he played another good shot, and while his runner ran for him, he also instinctively went to run. He then collapsed on the pitch due to dehydration and general fatigue, and didn't return to the crease because he forgot he needed to get back in. Gilchrist managed to flick the bails off and that was the end, he was run out in one of the most comical displays I've ever seen in recent times.

 

[deeps]

didn't laxman have one in the recent tests against pakistan after he got struck by a sami bouncer?

i dont see how a blow to the head can stop him from running, if he could still bat properly?

 

[age_master]

I completely agree. Runners should be banned.

yep, make the injured batsman come out and hit boundaries, if he can walk out to the pitch he doesn't need a runner, if he can stand up he doesn't need a runner, if he cant he should be off the field.

 

[vvk]

Well said...age_master.

 

[Swervy]

didn't laxman have one in the recent tests against pakistan after he got struck by a sami bouncer?

i dont see how a blow to the head can stop him from running, if he could still bat properly?

well the oppositions captain had the right to stop him having a runner if he wanted.

The thing is, captains dont refuse permission for a runner because they see it as a great opportunity to grab a wicket via the confusion caused by a runner..advantage fielding team as far as I am concerned

 

[Mister Wright]

The 12th man is part of the team though.

They are in the squad, but not in the team. If they were in the team they would be allowed to bowl and field, as a substitute.

 

[Mister Wright]

the point i'm making is that on the court of play there will still be 5 players, so there is no perceived disadvantage to a team with an injured player. same in rugby, football etc etc. When a player is injured, the bench is used to swap a player.

If a team has to field with 10 players, there is a big disadvantage, as opposed to in a basket ball match, where the only disadvantage is less men on the bench, which means players get more tired.

They still have 1 less player to call on for the game that's a pretty big disadvantage.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think the runners rule needs to be changed. The umprie is supposed to use his judgement, and disallow a runner if a player does not have a legitmate injury. Dehydration, pulled muscles, illnesses obtained during the match etc are valid cases for a runner in my view, they are a major disadvantage in most cases and result in many more runouts, and if a batsman pulls a muscle during a big innings but can still stand and bat, he should be allowed to stay out there and have someone else run for him.

Obviously, if an umpire feels a player is calling for a runner only because they aren't a great runner or they are tired (see Ranatunga), it shouldn't be allowed. Playing through injuries creates some of the most memorable moments in cricket however, and I don't see any reason to remove it.

 

[deeps]

They still have 1 less player to call on for the game that's a pretty big disadvantage.

nowhere near as much as having only 4 ppl on the court.