Cricket rules June 13, 2013

ODI Rules: The haze around a maze

Krish Sripada, India
Are rule changes in the ODI format bringing quality to the game or are they simply taking the format closer to T20?
42

While the purists love Test cricket and the new converts love Twenty20, the ODI format finds itself at the crossroads, even as a few new rules have been infused to save it from an identity crisis.

Cricket has never caught up with the masses like football has and part of the reason may lie in its complexity. Frequent changes in rules would only make it harder to follow. More importantly, one wonders about the thought process behind these changes. By logic, rules should be changed to preserve the spirit of the game while adapting to modern trends. One-dayers were simple a few years ago, with fielding restrictions in the first 15 overs and only two players allowed outside the circle. In the recent past, however, ODI rule changes somehow seem less technical and more cosmetic.

The concept of Powerplay is still a fresh one and yet, it has already been tinkered around with. The first Powerplay rules were introduced in 2005, when the innings had a 10-over mandatory Powerplay block at the start of the innings followed by two additional periods of five overs each that could be taken anytime during the innings. In 2011, a rule tweak meant that the two five-over blocks had to be used between the 15th and 40th overs. The latest change has done away with the bowling Powerplay altogether. Instead, the new rule states that a maximum of four fielders are allowed outside the circle during the non-Powerplay overs.

Try explaining this to a novice - a maximum of two players outside the 30-yard circle in the mandatory Powerplay, a maximum of three fielders during the batting Powerplay and a maximum of four players outside the 30-yard circle for the rest of the game. Imagine how football fans would react if only four defenders are allowed inside the penalty box when Messi attacks the goal. Imagine how drab a Kobe Bryant spinning lay-up would look if only two opponent players were allowed to stand in the paint. But, perspective is important: This is not a rule that deals with the technicality of the game, per se. It interferes directly with the captains' strategies; as if a cricket captain didn't already have enough on his plate.

Another rule allows bowlers to bowl two bouncers in an over instead of one. Fast bowlers, specially those of Dale Steyn's ilk, would be smacking their lips. This rule is slightly more technical and almost mimics the Test rule, so it is commendable to a certain extent. While the fielding restrictions tend to favour the batsmen, the bouncer rule tends to favour the fast bowler. Can we say, one all?

Two new balls are being used from either end, the intention being that the balls would stay relatively new by the end of the game. However, former England captain Mike Atherton made an interesting observation during an interview with fast bowler James Anderson. The latter felt the introduction of two new balls might not always work in the bowler's favour. He is right. If it is a good pitch and the conditions are bright and sunny, the two new balls could virtually translate into a massacre for the bowlers. Under overcast conditions, the new balls with their distinct seam movement, could give the pacers some genuine swing. But cricket, unlike most other sports, is already heavily dependent on the conditions. The toss is rarely as important in any game as it is in cricket. What was the alternative? A 30-over-old tattered ball reversing sharply, allowing skillful bowlers to conjure magic isn't such a bad option. The previous practice of changing the ball after 33 overs tried to address the fact that some balls go soft and soggy after about 30 overs. This has more to do with the poor quality of the balls than with anything else. Instead of addressing the core issue, the rule would now tinker with the way the game is played, virtually taking reverse swing out of the ODI game.

The changes seem to nudge the ODI game towards T20 territory. But the ODI format will lose its identity if you replace strategy and tactics with slam-bang action.

In cricket, the dimensions of the ground aren't fixed. Some grounds around the world are ridiculously small, with some boundaries just about 60 yards from the pitch. Big bats, fielding restrictions and brand new balls conflate into carnage for the bowlers. Interestingly, most of the new rules seem to say just one thing to the spinner: We don't need you in the ODI game, anymore.

The changes seem to nudge the ODI game towards T20 territory. But the ODI format will lose its identity if you replace strategy and tactics with slam-bang action. If tennis players had to limit their net approach or baseline forehand winners to a particular number every set, would it be any fun? The new rules are confusing in a game that is already befuddling to outsiders.

If there have to be changes, they need to address the quality of the game. For example, a direct hit shouldn't result in overthrows; the ball should be declared dead once it hits the stumps. That will encourage fielders with a good aim, instead of penalising them. A decision should be taken on whether the switch hit is a valid shot. The rule which prevents fielders from moving laterally in anticipation of the batsman's shot at least deserves attention, if not change. These are the nuances which should be addressed, not how many fielders there should be outside the circle. The beauty of the game lies in balance between bat and ball. The recent changes, barring the two bouncer per over rule, are largely playing to the galleries, instead of adding to the quality of the game.

If you have a submission for Inbox, send it to us here, with "Inbox" in the subject line

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Wannabekenobi on June 19, 2013, 4:53 GMT

    Proposed new rules: 1) Benefit of the doubt to go to the bowler.

    2) in reverse sweeps / switch hits, treat the batsmen differently, i.e: if he is a right hander, then ball pitching outside leg stump should not apply to him as he is now effectively a left hander. 3) stumped off a wide is good bowling, no wide should be called.

    4)A little banter on the field should be allowed, fans love that sort of thing, just check youtube for the number of videos on onfield banter, its not a sissy game, umpires should have the authority to nip it when they feel its enough.

    5)Keep the ball unchanged, its silly, with all the technology we have these days, its unbelievable to think that someone cannot manufacture a white cricket ball that will last 50 overs and a min of 300 hits with a bat.

    6)If a batsman does not walk after nicking it, he should be banned for the next match, that should encourage them to walk when they know they are out. Same with a fielder.

    This should make cricket interesting!

  • gmsjgmsj on June 18, 2013, 11:35 GMT

    My tuppence on the new ODI rules: To make the game more engrossing and a much better level playing field than it is at present - (i) Give the fielding captain the option to use 2 new balls or 1 new ball, 1 old ball (10-15 overs old). Then lets see if the present day batters are able to tackle good spin bowling, especially if the wicket assists spin. (ii) Fielding captain to be given the option of allowing 2 move overs to his best bowler(s) of the day so that - either one bowler can complete 12 overs in his quota or two bowlers can complete 11 overs in their quota. Then lets see if the middle order/late order bashers can still chase down a target! (iii) Instead of only 4 fielders outside the circle, why not allow only 4 fielders on any side of the wicket (excluding close-in men)? These 4 fielders to be allowed even to man boundaries. If it makes for negative bowling, just watch the batters innovate with trick shots!

  • itismenithin on June 17, 2013, 10:08 GMT

    The mandatory ball after 33 overs was introduced since the whilte ball tends to lose colour and get very brownish especially in subcontinent conditions, it has nothing to do with ball quality. Two new balls is a better alternative than changing it after 33 overs. Regarding power plays it has to tend to favour the bowling team more interestingly, so it is not all that bad. I'm not a big fan of fielding restrictions, something they need to rethink about. Im in favour of removing all fielding restrictions and agree with Shane Warne's viewpoint.

    Weather will always play a big role in cricket given it is played in 7-8 hr window and ball behaviour depends a lot on it, that makes the game interesting and it is challenging for crickets to perform in different conditions.

  • ayanjafri on June 19, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    I want to add rule. The rule is to make a power play of 5 overs for bowler. At first bowling power play restricted bowler to maximum of 3 fielder outside but this time the should allow minimum of three fielder outside the inner circle with allowing more fielder outside it will benefit the bowler to stop runs and take wickets. And it should be taken after 20 or 25 over or maybe after 40 overs.

  • Leggie on June 18, 2013, 5:25 GMT

    I don't understand this fuss around rule changes. It's certainly not confusing to ardent cricket fans. Cricket has always a remained a complex sport with complex rules, and the rule changes for followers is fairly straight forward to follow. If at all these rules only skew statistics and make comparisons of batting records over different generations wrong. We have seen ODIs evolve from 60 overs to 55 and to now 50 - with batting and bowling powerplays introduced. The rule changes are exciting.

  • rayfanatics on June 17, 2013, 20:48 GMT

    Never agree with the 2 new balls rule. A long time ago someone on this forum suggested - use 2 new balls uptil the 34th over and then let the fielding team decide whether they would like to continue with 2 balls or use just one from now to get a) some reverse going b) soften the ball further on slow pitches. Atleast this brings in bowling strategy. Hence one ball just gets 34 overs old and never becomes difficult to sight. Also the four fielder rule is plainly there to encourage that T20 garbage and not some genuine cricketing genius.

  • coldcoffee123 on June 17, 2013, 20:25 GMT

    Imagine if there was a rule in tennis that in the second set, one of the players will have to play left handed (if he is right handed). Well, obviously, more often than not, the other guy is going to win that set. Likewise, there should be no field restrictions whatsoever in ODI cricket. It takes away the element of surprise and that to me, is the whole point of watching and enjoying any game. Let the batsmen in the middle think on their feet to the field settings and pace their innings. Kinda like chess, where you (almost) never know what the opposite player is going to throw at you. It will also make the spectators and the TV viewers don the thinking cap and thus be more involved with what is going on in the field strategically. Right now, spectators already know what is going to be dished out. For example: If it a powerplay, then batsmen will try to score at 8-10 runs per over. Cricket needs to do away with pre-planned cosmetics, and let the players play pure, unadulterated cricket.

  • asim229 on June 17, 2013, 20:13 GMT

    To me 50 overs a side is too long for an ODI game. Reducing it to 45 or 40 overs a side will make it more interesting and there with be less one sided games and no boring period in the middle overs. Also remove all the fielding restrictions and allow unlimited bouncers and it will make games much more competetive and less confusing.

  • N.V.Prashanth on June 17, 2013, 19:31 GMT

    Try explaining a game of basketball with all the fouls involved. You got to be kidding if you that its easy. BTW, what is our goal here? The rules were changed to make it exciting for the cricket followers not for making it easy to explain to an outsider. Powerplay came in to being in order to avoid dormant middle overs and make the game more interesting. Max. of 4 fielders outside the circle has meant that more singles are being saved inside the circle and encourages batters to take additional risk. Its very easy to criticize but I do not see even a single good suggestion that can make the game more interesting i.e. if its not interesting already.

  • inswing on June 17, 2013, 18:32 GMT

    Sensible article. The rule changes aimed at hurting the spinners are misguided. A side should be _allowed_ to change balls after 33 overs, but not _required_ to do it. The many variations on fielding restrictions are pointless, and powerplays don't' add any excitement or any strategic interest. Simplified restrictions should be in place so that not everyone is on the boundary all the time, but that's it.

  • Wannabekenobi on June 19, 2013, 4:53 GMT

    Proposed new rules: 1) Benefit of the doubt to go to the bowler.

    2) in reverse sweeps / switch hits, treat the batsmen differently, i.e: if he is a right hander, then ball pitching outside leg stump should not apply to him as he is now effectively a left hander. 3) stumped off a wide is good bowling, no wide should be called.

    4)A little banter on the field should be allowed, fans love that sort of thing, just check youtube for the number of videos on onfield banter, its not a sissy game, umpires should have the authority to nip it when they feel its enough.

    5)Keep the ball unchanged, its silly, with all the technology we have these days, its unbelievable to think that someone cannot manufacture a white cricket ball that will last 50 overs and a min of 300 hits with a bat.

    6)If a batsman does not walk after nicking it, he should be banned for the next match, that should encourage them to walk when they know they are out. Same with a fielder.

    This should make cricket interesting!

  • gmsjgmsj on June 18, 2013, 11:35 GMT

    My tuppence on the new ODI rules: To make the game more engrossing and a much better level playing field than it is at present - (i) Give the fielding captain the option to use 2 new balls or 1 new ball, 1 old ball (10-15 overs old). Then lets see if the present day batters are able to tackle good spin bowling, especially if the wicket assists spin. (ii) Fielding captain to be given the option of allowing 2 move overs to his best bowler(s) of the day so that - either one bowler can complete 12 overs in his quota or two bowlers can complete 11 overs in their quota. Then lets see if the middle order/late order bashers can still chase down a target! (iii) Instead of only 4 fielders outside the circle, why not allow only 4 fielders on any side of the wicket (excluding close-in men)? These 4 fielders to be allowed even to man boundaries. If it makes for negative bowling, just watch the batters innovate with trick shots!

  • itismenithin on June 17, 2013, 10:08 GMT

    The mandatory ball after 33 overs was introduced since the whilte ball tends to lose colour and get very brownish especially in subcontinent conditions, it has nothing to do with ball quality. Two new balls is a better alternative than changing it after 33 overs. Regarding power plays it has to tend to favour the bowling team more interestingly, so it is not all that bad. I'm not a big fan of fielding restrictions, something they need to rethink about. Im in favour of removing all fielding restrictions and agree with Shane Warne's viewpoint.

    Weather will always play a big role in cricket given it is played in 7-8 hr window and ball behaviour depends a lot on it, that makes the game interesting and it is challenging for crickets to perform in different conditions.

  • ayanjafri on June 19, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    I want to add rule. The rule is to make a power play of 5 overs for bowler. At first bowling power play restricted bowler to maximum of 3 fielder outside but this time the should allow minimum of three fielder outside the inner circle with allowing more fielder outside it will benefit the bowler to stop runs and take wickets. And it should be taken after 20 or 25 over or maybe after 40 overs.

  • Leggie on June 18, 2013, 5:25 GMT

    I don't understand this fuss around rule changes. It's certainly not confusing to ardent cricket fans. Cricket has always a remained a complex sport with complex rules, and the rule changes for followers is fairly straight forward to follow. If at all these rules only skew statistics and make comparisons of batting records over different generations wrong. We have seen ODIs evolve from 60 overs to 55 and to now 50 - with batting and bowling powerplays introduced. The rule changes are exciting.

  • rayfanatics on June 17, 2013, 20:48 GMT

    Never agree with the 2 new balls rule. A long time ago someone on this forum suggested - use 2 new balls uptil the 34th over and then let the fielding team decide whether they would like to continue with 2 balls or use just one from now to get a) some reverse going b) soften the ball further on slow pitches. Atleast this brings in bowling strategy. Hence one ball just gets 34 overs old and never becomes difficult to sight. Also the four fielder rule is plainly there to encourage that T20 garbage and not some genuine cricketing genius.

  • coldcoffee123 on June 17, 2013, 20:25 GMT

    Imagine if there was a rule in tennis that in the second set, one of the players will have to play left handed (if he is right handed). Well, obviously, more often than not, the other guy is going to win that set. Likewise, there should be no field restrictions whatsoever in ODI cricket. It takes away the element of surprise and that to me, is the whole point of watching and enjoying any game. Let the batsmen in the middle think on their feet to the field settings and pace their innings. Kinda like chess, where you (almost) never know what the opposite player is going to throw at you. It will also make the spectators and the TV viewers don the thinking cap and thus be more involved with what is going on in the field strategically. Right now, spectators already know what is going to be dished out. For example: If it a powerplay, then batsmen will try to score at 8-10 runs per over. Cricket needs to do away with pre-planned cosmetics, and let the players play pure, unadulterated cricket.

  • asim229 on June 17, 2013, 20:13 GMT

    To me 50 overs a side is too long for an ODI game. Reducing it to 45 or 40 overs a side will make it more interesting and there with be less one sided games and no boring period in the middle overs. Also remove all the fielding restrictions and allow unlimited bouncers and it will make games much more competetive and less confusing.

  • N.V.Prashanth on June 17, 2013, 19:31 GMT

    Try explaining a game of basketball with all the fouls involved. You got to be kidding if you that its easy. BTW, what is our goal here? The rules were changed to make it exciting for the cricket followers not for making it easy to explain to an outsider. Powerplay came in to being in order to avoid dormant middle overs and make the game more interesting. Max. of 4 fielders outside the circle has meant that more singles are being saved inside the circle and encourages batters to take additional risk. Its very easy to criticize but I do not see even a single good suggestion that can make the game more interesting i.e. if its not interesting already.

  • inswing on June 17, 2013, 18:32 GMT

    Sensible article. The rule changes aimed at hurting the spinners are misguided. A side should be _allowed_ to change balls after 33 overs, but not _required_ to do it. The many variations on fielding restrictions are pointless, and powerplays don't' add any excitement or any strategic interest. Simplified restrictions should be in place so that not everyone is on the boundary all the time, but that's it.

  • on June 17, 2013, 17:49 GMT

    Cricket as a game is as much about strategy as about skills. By having various rules, cricket becomes intellectually stimulating to the players (hence the importance of captain unlike some other sports) as well as the viewers. For example what fun it will be if all players are patrolling the boundary, i would rather have the captain strategise according to the strengths and weakness of the batsman and the bowlers and place the fielders accordingly at various positions. I thoroughly believe that changes should be minimal and should address the quality of the game which is something probably happening. The recent one being no balling when the bowler flicks the bails while bowling. A lot of good changes have been made. I agree though that 4 fielders outside the circle rule is just catering to the T20 audience and is not fair for the bowlers. ODI's are not dying, look at champions trophy, what great matches, lets keep ODI as pure as possible with minimal innovations and corrective changes.

  • Haider on June 17, 2013, 16:56 GMT

    There should be no field restrictions whatsoever in ODI cricket

  • on June 17, 2013, 16:40 GMT

    Bring 50 overs cricket rules like we had in 90's. It will be a something watchable and stop changing rules every ow and then. These days there are too many and too frequent changes to rules that no one even knows what exactly is going on. I still fancy 90's version if ODI cricket. New fielding restriction rules are rubbish.

  • vrkp on June 17, 2013, 16:05 GMT

    I can see two main reasons why cricket is not going to be as big as football.

    1. there are three types of matches played in cricket with each has its own set of rules and regulations whereas in football there is only one type.

    2. Even the shortest form of cricket will take at least 3.30 to 4 hours to complete whereas in football, even the longest with all the extra time and penalties, all is over in max 2 hours.

    as long as both the above scenarios are not going to change, football will be watched by more people than cricket bcos not everyone is ready to spend 7-8 hous to 5 days.

  • Harvey on June 17, 2013, 15:12 GMT

    @PE FE - I think if you look it up, you'll find that football is played and watched by a far larger number of people in South Africa than cricket will ever be. Even a cursory look on Google reveals that last year's local derby between the Kaiser Chiefs and Orlando Pirates drew a crowd of over 87,000! Football is also big (and in most cases increasing) in all the other places you mention with the possible exception of Sri Lanka. The subcontinental teams don't do well at international football yet, but that doesn't mean people there aren't playing it or watching the likes of Manchester Utd or Barcelona, not to mention local club sides. Personally I prefer cricket, but I recognise that it doesn't have the same mass appeal as football does, a situation not helped by the ICC's constant meddling and tinkering with rules and guidelines.

  • jillips on June 17, 2013, 14:22 GMT

    I suggest that one bowler should be allowed to bowl for half of the allocated overs, i.e. 10 in a T20 game and 25 in a 50 over ODI.

  • vrkp on June 17, 2013, 13:56 GMT

    I agree with the point about 10 overs per bowler rule. May be to give balance to the bowling, that rule may be changed a bit.

    1 x bowler can bowl maximum of 12 overs while all others can have a maximum of 10 overs. This way the best bowler on that day gets 2 extra overs to help his team.

  • nusratv on June 17, 2013, 13:16 GMT

    Why are only bowlers restricted to bowl 10 overs i.e 60 balls in an ODI innings? Why isnt a similar restriction imposed on the batsmen? To be fair and equitalble either do away with the 10 over per bowler restriction or impose a similar one on the batsmen, i.e no batsman should be allowed to play more than 60 balls per innings.

  • symsun on June 17, 2013, 11:59 GMT

    All these unnecessary rules and complications is going to kill the ODI, which was loved in the late 90's after the introduction of 15 overs fielding restrictions and before the introduction of batting/bowling powerplay. Soon T20 will also be dying. And then we will back to ODI with a combination of test cricket and T20. ODI will be played with two innings of 25 overs each but with only 10 wickets per game. To get a result, each team should have played one innings.

    Cricket is more interesting during those days. Here are few heroes, becoz of whom we luved cricket during those days.. Sachin, Ganguly, Dravid, Srinath, Prasad, Kumble, Jadeja, Azar, Robin Singh, Jayasuriya, De Silva, Ranatunga, Vaas, Murali, Kalu, Mahanama, Saqlain, Anwar, Ijaz, Inzamam, Lara, Ambrose, Walsh, Cullinan, Conje, Gary Kirsten, Hudson, Donald, Pollock, Klusener, M.Waugh, S.Waugh, Ponting, Bevan, McGrath, Andy Flower, Paul Strang, Heath Streak, Fleming, Astle, Chirs Haris, Cairns, Thorpe, Stewart, Cork, Gough. I

  • Cyril_Knight on June 17, 2013, 11:23 GMT

    Anyone in favour of removing all fielding restrictions needs to watch some classic matches on ESPN. The one day matches shown regularly from the 70s were a joke. For almost the entire second innings every fielder was placed on the boundary. It was not entertaining.

  • symsun on June 17, 2013, 11:02 GMT

    All these unnecessary rules and complications is going to kill the ODI, which was loved in the late 90's and before the introduction of batting/bowling. Soon T20 will also be dying. And then we will back to ODI with a combination of test cricket and T20. ODI will be played with two innings of 25 overs each but with only 10 wickets per game. To get a result, each time should have played one innings.

  • chapnis on June 17, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    New Zealand has been using 2 (and a half) spinner so far this Champions Trophy quite effectively. I hardly think the new changes have disadvantaged spinners that much...

  • yoohoo on June 17, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    @GlobalCricketLover - The reason leg byes are allowed is because it is such a nuisance deciding if the ball hit the bat or the pad. You can see that in the case of LBWs there is so much controversy with DRS etc. Multiply that by 100 and that is how much controversy you will have if you ban the legbye. It might be logical, but it is not a practical suggestion. Currently, the if a mistake is made the run gets counted in extras instead of batsman's score or vice versa, which is still ok since overall team score is not affected.

  • on June 17, 2013, 10:23 GMT

    Cricket has never caught up with the masses like football has and part of the reason may lie in its complexity.

    what the hell are you talking...foot ball is rarely played in India, Pak and Sri Lanka. may be your statement is valid for England only. Football is not big in Aus, NZ and SA either.

  • Sukruti on June 17, 2013, 10:20 GMT

    In fact I do not need any restrictions, play the game as pure as it was designed. No powerplays, no fielding restrictions, no freehits, no 3rd umpire, no DRS, then you see the beauty of it. Then it boils down to pure skill and tactics.

  • Wannabekenobi on June 17, 2013, 9:53 GMT

    The current ICC Champions trophy tournament has seen the completely unfair nature of the ODI game. We have seen 2 matches where teams fought to the end in extremely close,low scoring encounters and the yet the Net Run Rate meant that the margin of defeat was high, we had duckworth / lewis coming into play and ruining 2 games, it was unfair for Pakistan to find out their overs reduced mid innings, and west indies lose a wicket in a winning match and they lost their place in the semi's.

    DRS has been good, but one review simply will not do, Williamson reviewed when plumb, Daniel Vettori got a howler, Nathan Mcullum escaped and Southee survived to take NZ home.

    Denesh Ramdin claimed a catch that wasnt one, and gets suspended, Batsman on the other hand, stand their ground when they know they've nicked it, no punishment there.

    In all this Warner punched root, this tournament has clearly showed us all whats wrong in cricket of late. There needs to be some balance and fairness.

  • 23khan23 on June 17, 2013, 9:50 GMT

    I dont understand why they have batting and bowling powerplay such wierd rules. Whenever the captain i.e fileding side they can have their strategies to prevent batsmans to play shot and scoring runs. This is like cheating having a batting powerplay and keeping only 4 men outside the circle.. This gives advantage to the batting team. The batting team should be able to play their own cricket irrespective of what the field plan is set by the opposition team. The same applies to the batting team when they come to bowl.

  • on June 17, 2013, 9:27 GMT

    Some good points. However, why should the batsmen be prevented from running just because the wicket has been broken? It is often the case that had the ball not hit the wicket, that four overthrows would have resulted. Leave this part of the game alone.

  • Nathan74 on June 17, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    T20 is not cricket. It is entertainment. If someone things that they could compete with Football or Basketball other short games by introducing T20 they are mistaken. People love test cricket for different reasons. It is slow and requires skills and brains. One days games used to be a shorter version. Now it is been changed so much we might as well scrap it. The ICC and BCCI are killing the game for short term benefits. If this goes on like this the game will die soon.

  • itsganu on June 17, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Considering all the rules are favoring batsmen. Can we have a rule say every 3 continuous dot ball a bowler bowls the batting team gets a negative run (-1 run). This can be subtracted from extras ?.This will urge the team to score at good pace rather than save in begining and hit in end.

    Also, bowlers do get credit.

  • PrasPunter on June 17, 2013, 9:02 GMT

    In my opinion, ODIs can as well be made as an one-day equivalent of tests - scrap away all the field restrictions, change the ball after 25 as suggested by @Subhash - just that it will be a 50-overs-a-side game. T20 has already become the symbol of slog-fest. So need not have another version that is equally imbalanced between the bat and ball. And the 4 fielders-outside-the ring is just as ridiculous as it can get. All these ones make average flat-track bullies look like legends !!

  • Cyril_Knight on June 17, 2013, 8:57 GMT

    Of all formats, I really enjoy 40 over cricket. It is a great length time-wise, but also for the cricket itself. 50 overs just takes too long.

    There is little down-time and no need to fiddle with rule changes/innovations that only manufacture similar, thus dull cricket.

    In my ideal world internationals would be of 40 overs and the County game wouldn't lose it's most marketable format. Counties only choose to promote T20 now, this is a massive mistake as last years poor weather proved.

    All the rules have made games too false. But they were only introduced because 50 overs cricket has become "boring." Scrap the rules, go back to 1996 regulations and have 40 overs per side.

  • on June 17, 2013, 8:54 GMT

    ICC should allow at least 3 Challenges per inning & 3rd umpire should intervene if any player is out / not out in order for a fair play & to improve quality of the game

  • GlobalCricketLover on June 17, 2013, 8:50 GMT

    Ban the leg byes...why should batting team gain a run when the batsman couldn't even hit it with his bat? Let the batsman earn his runs. It's also robbing the bowler when a cracker bouncer hits the helmet and goes for runs behind keeper/slips.

  • on June 17, 2013, 8:27 GMT

    To Introduce 2 new balls is baseless.They could have allowed an option ball change after 25 overs (just like after 80 overs in tests). That you can have teams adopting different tactics depending on their bowling strengths and gave more flexibility to the captains.

  • vallavarayar on June 17, 2013, 8:20 GMT

    What? We have 2 new balls now?!

  • Mufaddal786 on June 17, 2013, 7:22 GMT

    To Introduce 2 new balls is baseless. As now reverse swing is completely out of the picture as well we don't see proper spin bowler who really believes in flight & trajectory.

  • on June 17, 2013, 7:14 GMT

    What would really make the ODI game an even contest is to have 13 a side matches where 11 bat and 11 field. Another would be to allow two bowlers to bowl 12 overs.

  • on June 17, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    I would make the odi a 40 over game. Power play in the first 10 overs. And one 5 over power play to be used between overs 25 -35.

    But only 9 batsmen.

  • ddramireddy on June 17, 2013, 6:08 GMT

    Introducing this rule "a direct hit shouldn't result in overthrows; the ball should be declared dead once it hits the stumps" has to address lot of scenarios.

    1. Batsman might claim, they are already in the verge of taking another run. 2. When 2 batsman are at same end due to a miss-communication, if the direct hit also happened at same-end, the ball becomes dead. It robs the fielding team an opportunity to runout at other end again, at the same time, batting team also might also lost 1 run. This might even happen at last ball of a ODI.

  • on June 17, 2013, 3:51 GMT

    Two Bouncers and All Powerplay shud be completed in 40 overs are Acceptable and good But 4 fielders allowed outside 30 yards circle in non powerplay overs is unacceptable its turns the game too much of batsman oriented

  • on June 17, 2013, 1:18 GMT

    Perfect.... i am a intense follower of the cricket but it still takes some times to understand what's happening in ODI... you never when you got to know about a new rule?????

  • on June 17, 2013, 1:18 GMT

    Perfect.... i am a intense follower of the cricket but it still takes some times to understand what's happening in ODI... you never when you got to know about a new rule?????

  • on June 17, 2013, 3:51 GMT

    Two Bouncers and All Powerplay shud be completed in 40 overs are Acceptable and good But 4 fielders allowed outside 30 yards circle in non powerplay overs is unacceptable its turns the game too much of batsman oriented

  • ddramireddy on June 17, 2013, 6:08 GMT

    Introducing this rule "a direct hit shouldn't result in overthrows; the ball should be declared dead once it hits the stumps" has to address lot of scenarios.

    1. Batsman might claim, they are already in the verge of taking another run. 2. When 2 batsman are at same end due to a miss-communication, if the direct hit also happened at same-end, the ball becomes dead. It robs the fielding team an opportunity to runout at other end again, at the same time, batting team also might also lost 1 run. This might even happen at last ball of a ODI.

  • on June 17, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    I would make the odi a 40 over game. Power play in the first 10 overs. And one 5 over power play to be used between overs 25 -35.

    But only 9 batsmen.

  • on June 17, 2013, 7:14 GMT

    What would really make the ODI game an even contest is to have 13 a side matches where 11 bat and 11 field. Another would be to allow two bowlers to bowl 12 overs.

  • Mufaddal786 on June 17, 2013, 7:22 GMT

    To Introduce 2 new balls is baseless. As now reverse swing is completely out of the picture as well we don't see proper spin bowler who really believes in flight & trajectory.

  • vallavarayar on June 17, 2013, 8:20 GMT

    What? We have 2 new balls now?!

  • on June 17, 2013, 8:27 GMT

    To Introduce 2 new balls is baseless.They could have allowed an option ball change after 25 overs (just like after 80 overs in tests). That you can have teams adopting different tactics depending on their bowling strengths and gave more flexibility to the captains.

  • GlobalCricketLover on June 17, 2013, 8:50 GMT

    Ban the leg byes...why should batting team gain a run when the batsman couldn't even hit it with his bat? Let the batsman earn his runs. It's also robbing the bowler when a cracker bouncer hits the helmet and goes for runs behind keeper/slips.

  • on June 17, 2013, 8:54 GMT

    ICC should allow at least 3 Challenges per inning & 3rd umpire should intervene if any player is out / not out in order for a fair play & to improve quality of the game