Stupid Cricket Rules

[cnerd123]

I mean, I don't think they actually changed the bails, it's just that it happened 5 times in such a short period and then not at all. The ICC and Zing bail manufacturers did say the bails were fine and this was a freak run of events. Perhaps they were right?

 

[trundler]

Wouldn't make sense to me if they made merely being lit out since that would be ****ing with a perfectly good rule. They do check to see when bails were lit in case of runouts so that's inconsistent. Might not really matter at all since the bails would always be displaced by a player hitting the stumps up close.

 

[cnerd123]

Wouldn't make sense to me if they made merely being lit out since that would be ****ing with a perfectly good rule. They do check to see when bails were lit in case of runouts so that's inconsistent. Might not really matter at all since the bails would always be displaced by a player hitting the stumps up close.

to my understanding bails were first invented to help people see when the ball hit the stumps. And therefore, to clarify this, the stumps were only considered to be 'put down' if the bail was knocked off.

However, if the stumps and the bails are now lighting up when struck by the ball, then they're doing their job. It is completely arbitrary to require the bail to be dislodged in this scenario, since everyone clearly see the ball has struck them.

So I think it's fine to introduce a playing condition at the international level stating that as long as the stumps/bails light up, the wicket can be considered 'put down', regardless of if the bail is dislodged/stump is still standing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

to my understanding bails were first invented to help people see when the ball hit the stumps. And therefore, to clarify this, the stumps were only considered to be 'put down' if the bail was knocked off.

However, if the stumps and the bails are now lighting up when struck by the ball, then they're doing their job. It is completely arbitrary to require the bail to be dislodged in this scenario, since everyone clearly see the ball has struck them.

So I think it's fine to introduce a playing condition at the international level stating that as long as the stumps/bails light up, the wicket can be considered 'put down', regardless of if the bail is dislodged/stump is still standing.

I agree, excellent points

 

[Bijed]

Haha true, well hope they reflect on those stupid rules as efficiently as well

Would be hilarious if Carey got his helmet knocked off and land on the stumps, ta-da, bails stay.

Made me think of another rule I'd change - I don't think a batsman's protective equipment being dislodged and breaking the stumps should count as being out hit wicket

 

[trundler]

to my understanding bails were first invented to help people see when the ball hit the stumps. And therefore, to clarify this, the stumps were only considered to be 'put down' if the bail was knocked off.

However, if the stumps and the bails are now lighting up when struck by the ball, then they're doing their job. It is completely arbitrary to require the bail to be dislodged in this scenario, since everyone clearly see the ball has struck them.

So I think it's fine to introduce a playing condition at the international level stating that as long as the stumps/bails light up, the wicket can be considered 'put down', regardless of if the bail is dislodged/stump is still standing.

Makes sense but personally, I'd say don't fix what ain't broken

 

[Uppercut]

Hardly any of the rules ITT are stupid. Most you could make a case for.

The umpires having no real recourse when the bowling side decides to waste time waiting for light or rain, however, is a disgracefully stupid rule.

 

[Andy1993]

They're laws not rules...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I wouldn’t say this is stupid as such. But when a catch is taken and the batsman have crossed I don’t agree with the new batsman going to the other end. The batsman already at the crease should just return to the end he was when the ball was bowled.

 

[Starfighter]

to my understanding bails were first invented to help people see when the ball hit the stumps.

My understanding is they were invented as a gimmick to look good on tv, or at least that's how they were first used and marketed.

 

[Burner]

I wouldn’t say this is stupid as such. But when a catch is taken and the batsman have crossed I don’t agree with the new batsman going to the other end. The batsman already at the crease should just return to the end he was when the ball was bowled.

Yeah, this is maybe just my preference but I too would like a catch to purvey some advantage to the bowler in that he would get to bowl to the weaker or unset batsman.

For a long time, it was a major pet peeve of mine that at the death regardless of how good the bowling, the batsmen will always get a single off every ball because the non striker is already half way down the pitch when the ball is bowled. Fortunately because of the Mankad danger, this has cut down now.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My understanding is they were invented as a gimmick to look good on tv, or at least that's how they were first used and marketed.

Even more so live at the ground IMO. That's where you really notice the difference between regular bails and light up bails.

 

[cnerd123]

My understanding is they were invented as a gimmick to look good on tv, or at least that's how they were first used and marketed.

Are you talking about zing bails or bails themselves? Im talking about bails themselves, why they exist on top of the stumps to begin with.

 

[cnerd123]

Hardly any of the rules ITT are stupid. Most you could make a case for.

The umpires having no real recourse when the bowling side decides to waste time waiting for light or rain, however, is a disgracefully stupid rule.

I don't understand what you mean here. Law 41.9 covers this doesn't it? Or do you mean wasting time once the teams have already gone off the field?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't understand what you mean here. Law 41.9 covers this doesn't it? Or do you mean wasting time once the teams have already gone off the field?

Forgive me for stepping in, but I think the key word of his comment is "real". Maybe there is a law that covers it, but I think he means that in practice it just doesn't happen, or possibly the way the law is worded prevents the umpires from making decisive, timely intervention in cases where the fielding team is wasting time.

 

[Starfighter]

Are you talking about zing bails or bails themselves? Im talking about bails themselves, why they exist on top of the stumps to begin with.

Zing bails, since that's what the discussion seemed to be over.

 

[cnerd123]

Zing bails, since that's what the discussion seemed to be over.

ah i was talking about the entire concept of bails themselves

if zing bails not falling down is an issue, I think a PC could be introduced that eliminates the need for that all together. if the stump/bails light up, the wickets are considered broken. the bail won't actually have to leave it's groove

this should be perfectly in line with the reason behind bails existing in the first place (assuming the reason is that they exist so people can see when the ball has hit the stumps)

 

[Burner]

I think it's also about trusting the technician (operator) who marks point of pitch, point of impact etc. as a small millimetre mistake can change a decision. So, the question is who do we trust more - 'the umpire' or 'the technician and the technology'?

How does the technician mark these things actually? There has to be some sort of method of attaining precision and can't be just them marking based on what they see. I'd rather have a 95% accuracy on that than the umpires call.

 

[Chewie]

The technicians don't have any involvement in that sort of thing

 

[Burner]

What is the point of the fake fielding rule? Isn't it the responsibility of the batsmen to keep their eyes on the ball. If you fall for fake fielding tactics, you are being bested. It should be encouraged imo. What's next? fast bowlers should not bowl slower balls because the batsman is expecting a quicker ball?