Cricket rules and laws

A thread to discuss rules and laws of cricket
There is need for sport to evolve at times , with views for improvement or whatever
There might be rules/laws that annoy cricket followers
There might be recent innovations that improve or devalue the game
There will be rules/laws that will be introduced from here on , for better or worse

RUNNERS
A few years ago injured players were prohibited from using runners when batting
Not sure about this
In many sports there is a interchange or reserve player/players to substitute injured players
But not for a batsmen in cricket
You can be subbed by a 12th man when fielding , which contradicts why a runner cant be used when batting

A compromise might be to allow a runner provided that batsman bats at 11 ?


QUESTION
Should runners be allowed for injured cricketers ?

I don't think we need runners. If a bowler is injured we can't substitute a new bowler or get someone do do part of his task so I don't see why a batsman should get one.

wasn't one player the reason a runner was disallowed ?

Arjuna Ranatunga

Not because he was injured. Just too fat to get up and down the wicket.

BBL
Adelaide Strikers v Melbourne Stars
NO Ball
FREE HIT
Brad Hodge
Lofted drive
Caught Maxwell b Hastings
Batsmen ran 2 runs
Team awarded 3 runs, 1 for a no ball , 2 for the runs [3 all up ?]
Wicket does not count on a FREE HIT

Should batters get awarded runs if they are defacto dismissed ?

?
Team 1 run
Brad Hodge = no runs ?
?

In T20 they can do what they like to keep the big hits coming.

Wouldn't like to see it in Tests though.

i know it'll never happen but i think that if a fielder throws the stumps down the ball should be deemed dead & the batting team not gifted runs for overthrows, if a fielder does not hit the stumps then overthrows should be counted

Good point Bayman
The ultimate for a fielder is to hit the stumps with a throw
Often enough the direct hit will deflect and go for runs
Thats scant reward for doing almost everything right
It seems too harsh that the fielding side is penalised when this happens

Australia v West Indies
2nd test

There were at least 3 instances of Australian bowlers missing out on wickets on no balls
James Pattinson twice
Josh Hazelwood once

The batters had the decisions reversed with the 3rd umpire checking for no balls
The verdicts are correct , and whilst its annoying that the game is held up , its fair

The question is :
Should the umpires check EVERY single ball for no balls ?

Morally they should be for EVERY ball
But it would take too much time
Imagine checking for no balls when the spinners are on, would slow the game down too much

bayman wrote:i know it'll never happen but i think that if a fielder throws the stumps down the ball should be deemed dead & the batting team not gifted runs for overthrows, if a fielder does not hit the stumps then overthrows should be counted

What about this one from the BBL game Adelaide Strikers v Sydney Sixers
Ludeman  pushes a ball into short cover
The bowler Botha, swoops on the ball and fires in a return to the keeper
Ludeman does not attempt a run, stands his ground
The return hits Ludemans bat, deflects , and ends up crossing the boundary
4 runs to Ludeman

In this case an errant throw went for runs
Bothas un-needed throw cost the team 4 runs

But there is a point to be raised
Ludeman did the gentleman thing , he attempted no run , its one of those cricket things
AS were given 4 runs as it crossed the boundary, Ludeman cant control that
But should players take runs from deflections off the bat or body ?

NZ V AU first test Auckalnd
Adam Voges shoulders arms and is bowled by Doug Bracewell
Noooooooooooooooooooooo Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall

Replays show that it was not a no ball
Should Voges have been given out when replays show that it was a legit delivery ?
In this instance Voges almost certainly would have played the same way

Grey area
There will be other times when a batsman hears the call and adjusts the way he plays ?
I will assume that you can hear a call and at times adjust in time when facing 130km + bowlers

The front foot no-ball rule is coming under fire again in the media.
I see Rodney Hogg has fired a broadside at it saying umpires simply cannot see it well enough to get it right. He advocates reverting to the back foot rule.

That may be an issue too depending on where the umpire has to stand to see it.

It seems that they go to the video on every dismissal anyway, so not sure how much it matters in the tv technology age.

I can't recall what brought about the front foot rule. Have a vague recollection of it happening when I was a kid, but not the reasons behind.

What do others think on this?

I'm pretty sure the front foot rule was brought in to stop the 'drag'.

At that time, with the back foot rule, bowlers would plant the back foot just behind the crease, take a giant stride and 'drag' the back foot, so they were bowling well past the front crease.

It's difficult for the umpire to judge no-balls and it's even harder to watch the front foot, make a judgement, then lift the eyes and concentrate on assessing the play for a possible appeal.

Darren Lehmann's idea of the square leg umpire adjudicating seems weird to me - as if that umpire could see properly from that far away and at that angle.

Easiest thing is to review the no-ball delivery if a wicket is taken or would have been taken.

What worries me more is that with technology, we're trying to make new rules for every possible happening in cricket.

Technology has brought as many problems as it has helped, IMO.

Give each side 1 referral only and leave the rest to the umpires, good or bad.

I think the right to refer should sit firmly with the umpire personally.

The adjudication of the game should not be part of the strategy of the game.

The umpire adjudicates the game. If there's a close call he refers it to the 3rd umpire. End of story.

The players should have no power/say/authority, video review should purely be a tool for the umpires and that is all.

You are right about the drag Lee, there is a photo somewhere about one bowler whose front foot was about half a metre in front of the front crease due to a huge drag of his back foot.

I think the umpires should be calling them, if they don't it costs the batsmen the chance of a free swing.

Is there a need to change the laws? I would have thought it is the bowlers responsibility to get there front foot behind the line?

if bowlers had their run up marked 8-10 inches back, then a no ball would be a very rare occurrence

You have to ask the question
Why do Test cricket bowlers bowl so many no balls ?


I will go back to when I bowled pace
I would deliberately bowl anywhere from 2 inches from the crease line to 2 feet behind the crease line
The reason was that with the same action that it reach the batsman either slower or quicker
That meant I varied my pace
1 foot further back decreased the delivery of speed a fair bit

Then back to the reason why fast bowlers bowl so many no balls
I will use James Pattinson as the example , as he has had dismissals reversed this summer because he over stepped
James bowls  very fast, consistently at about 140-145kms

The question is for every inch forward he bowls it would increase his speed by something
But by how much ?

Increasing the speed of the delivery is probably why these bowlers bowl no balls
It 'seams' a logical answer

It seems poor for bowlers to keep bowling no balls with the amount of training that is being done, Unless no balls are not being monitored at training witch isn't going to help the bowlers in the long run

William wrote:It seems poor for bowlers to keep bowling no balls with the amount of training that is being done, Unless no balls are not being monitored at training witch isn't going to help the bowlers in the long run

It seems they are not monitored. At most training sessions it appears that the bowler works at everything apart from getting front foot right unless it specifically is looked at.

UncleHuey wrote:

William wrote:It seems poor for bowlers to keep bowling no balls with the amount of training that is being done, Unless no balls are not being monitored at training witch isn't going to help the bowlers in the long run

It seems they are not monitored. At most training sessions it appears that the bowler works at everything apart from getting front foot right unless it specifically is looked at.

I would hope it would be monitored more closely in the future specifically James Pattinson who must have taken about 4 wickets from no balls this summer.

www.theroar.com.au/tv/controversial-full-toss-wicket-divides-cricket-fans/


Game played between Emu Plains and Glenmore Park
Whats your decision ?

Scrappy wrote:www.theroar.com.au/tv/controversial-full-toss-wicket-divides-cricket-fans/


Game played between Emu Plains and Glenmore Park
Whats your decision ?

out for mine, when the ball which was given air (like a spinner would) gets to the batsman it isn't any higher than waist high & dropping, if the batsman was any good it would have got smacked to the boundary, poor batting & equally poor umpiring.....i hope my comments doesn't incur a Cricket Australia fine like the one Kevin Pieterson copped.....i saw & heard his comments live & to me he only said what he thought & was not in anyway degrading the umpire as a person & i'll add the umpire concerned admitted he made a mistake

Not out, no ball, over waist high on the full when it passed the batsman.

Lee wrote:Not out, no ball, over waist high on the full when it passed the batsman.  

The law discriminates
That ball would never be over waist height if Bayman , you and I faced it ...