ICC annual conference June 27, 2011

Runners abolished, ODI and run-out laws tweaked

ESPNcricinfo staff
218

The ICC's executive board has ratified the recommendations of the ICC Chief Executives' Committee including the abolition of runners, the usage of new balls from each end in one-dayers, and regulation of when the batting and bowling Powerplays can be taken. In addition to approving the rule changes to ODIs, the board also gave their nod to two interesting amendments to run-out laws: From October 1, batsmen can be dismissed obstructing the field if they change their course while running to prevent a run-out chance. Additionally, bowlers will be allowed to run out a non-striker backing up unfairly, a rule that has not been in force in recent times.

The amendments were made on the sidelines of the more high-profile announcements pertaining to the implementation of the Decision Review System, and the format and composition of the next two World Cups and World Twenty20s.

Runners have been an established part of cricket for more than a century, though there have been several recent disagreements over their usage. In the 2009 Champions Trophy, Andrew Strauss had denied the cramping Graeme Smith a runner leading to controversy. Earlier this year, Michael Clarke had also questioned the need for runners for batsmen suffering from cramps.

The ambiguity surrounding the 'obstructing the field' amendment is likely to spark debate in the coming days. Currently, batsmen are allowed to come in between a throw and the stumps, though they are disallowed from purposefully obstructing a fielder from collecting, catching or throwing a ball. The ICC has not clarified as to what constitutes a 'change of course' for a batsman running between the wickets, or whether the batsman can use his bat or some other part of his body to obstruct the ball without physically changing course.

Running out the non-striker for backing up too far, also known as 'Mankading' the non-striker, was a part of cricket's rules for long, though considered an unsporting thing to do. Courtney Walsh made the headlines in the 1987 World Cup for graciously abstaining from running out Saleem Jafar who was backing up, potentially costing West Indies the game. Kapil Dev's run-out of Peter Kirsten after repeated warnings in Port Elizabeth in 1992-93 was the last such dismissal in international cricket. The rule was scrapped in recent years, allowing non-strikers to get a head-start even as the bowler got into his delivery stride.

The committee also made a series of proposals to spruce up the one-day game, foremost among them being the decision to use new balls at each end. The white ball loses colour as the innings progresses, making it hard to sight for the batsman, a problem the ICC had tried to address by replacing the ball after 34 overs. The most high-profile occasion so far where two new balls were used was the 1992 World Cup. The new ruling means bowlers will be able to get the ball to swing for longer periods, giving them more of a say in an increasingly uneven battle with batsmen.

The other major decision regarding the one-day game was to allow teams to take the batting and bowling Powerplays only between the 16th and 40th over. While the idea of introducing Powerplays is generally seen to have added an element of unpredictability to the format, bowling sides have usually stuck to taking their Powerplay between the 11th and 15th over, while the batting team has saved theirs for late in the innings. This has meant the Powerplays didn't address the familiar criticism of the middle overs of a one-day game being predictable, something the new proposal aims to correct.

The committee also decided to impose tougher penalties against slow over-rates. While captains were previously suspended for three over-rate breaches within a year, they will now be docked after only two offences in the same format within a 12-month period.

ICC chief Haroon Lorgat backed the changes suggested. "Even though the success of 50-over cricket played during the World Cup 2011 was universally acknowledged, the CEC rightly supported the enhancements recommended by the ICC Cricket Committee to strengthen the format further, including encouraging Members to trial some specific innovations in their domestic cricket."

Some ideas the committee recommends for domestic trials include changing the maximum number of overs a bowler is allowed, increasing the number of bouncers permitted in an over from one to two, making it optional to have close-in catchers and restricting the number of fielders outside the circle to four in non-Powerplay overs.

Another big issue to be addressed when the full council meets on Thursday is whether to continue with the rotational system of choosing ICC presidents. Pakistan and Bangladesh - the two members who are to put up the next candidates for president and vice-president - are both believed to be opposed to changing the current procedure.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Poontz on June 30, 2011, 13:35 GMT

    Do you know when Kapil ran out Gary?That was funny.

  • Hoggy_1989 on June 30, 2011, 11:51 GMT

    Not really sure how that solves the problem of the 'boring middle overs'. Overs 11-15, 30-35 and 40-45 are going to be batsman stonewalling to accelerate in the next 5, where the 'fun' will happen. Now there's more of them! The new ball at each end has been a fixture of List A games in Australia for some time and the spinners still turn the ball, but get more assistance with bounce...so they'll still get wickets. Being able to run out the non-striker who's backing up a long way is good. I remember some games in the last WC where the non-striker was effectively halfway down the wicket as the bowler was delivering the ball. I still reckon the easiest way to spice up ODIs would be to make the pitches more sporting. Give it some turn, or put a bit of grass/bounce into it. The good batsman will still score and the bowlers will become more than just humanized bowling machines. But, of course, that would limit the amount of revenue from TV rights the boards/ICC would inevitably make

  • on June 29, 2011, 17:26 GMT

    "Take away....half the advertising"? Yes! brilliant idea! Charge the spectators more per ticket, then!

  • pradeep_dealwis on June 29, 2011, 15:13 GMT

    two ball at each end is stupid. It takes away the spinning options and reverse swing. That's not helping the bowlers, it killing them.

  • Kumar_cricket on June 29, 2011, 15:11 GMT

    Remove Power plays and increase number of overs for the best bowlers in the side.This will help to spice up the one day format.

  • on June 29, 2011, 15:08 GMT

    What about when Trott blocked the throw with his bat in an ODI in Australia? Will that be obstruction now? Because it was awesome.

  • on June 29, 2011, 14:39 GMT

    all the changes are not needed. What we want is to have cricket played with the human element intact. All the ICC is doing to make cricket difficult .What they should do is make match referees redundant and increase the technology.. Players careeres are under pressure to perform and if given a bad decision can them. Introduce the technology and the money saved from paying match refeees can help pay for it. You want to spread the game but do not want to expand the number of teams in the World Cup .

  • on June 29, 2011, 13:35 GMT

    Take away power plays, fielding restrictions, tv review, bowling restrictions, dead wickets, half the advertising. 'Re-introduce' REAL cricket. Simple. May the best team win! Thanks England for this great game. Damn you ICC for ruining it!!!

  • Sanoop_r on June 29, 2011, 13:31 GMT

    Does the obstruction rule mean that batsmen will not be allowed to run in between the stumps and the throwing line of the fielder?

  • on June 29, 2011, 13:30 GMT

    Exciting cricket is a 'fair' battle between bat and ball. NOT about fielding and bowling restrictions. It's about the accomplishment of overcoming quality bowling relative to the ability of both players. Tight contests, etc. That is what made me fall in love with the game. I only started losing interest as the administrators kept 'tweaking' rules. Best ODI's Ive ever watched have mostly come from modest totals.

  • Poontz on June 30, 2011, 13:35 GMT

    Do you know when Kapil ran out Gary?That was funny.

  • Hoggy_1989 on June 30, 2011, 11:51 GMT

    Not really sure how that solves the problem of the 'boring middle overs'. Overs 11-15, 30-35 and 40-45 are going to be batsman stonewalling to accelerate in the next 5, where the 'fun' will happen. Now there's more of them! The new ball at each end has been a fixture of List A games in Australia for some time and the spinners still turn the ball, but get more assistance with bounce...so they'll still get wickets. Being able to run out the non-striker who's backing up a long way is good. I remember some games in the last WC where the non-striker was effectively halfway down the wicket as the bowler was delivering the ball. I still reckon the easiest way to spice up ODIs would be to make the pitches more sporting. Give it some turn, or put a bit of grass/bounce into it. The good batsman will still score and the bowlers will become more than just humanized bowling machines. But, of course, that would limit the amount of revenue from TV rights the boards/ICC would inevitably make

  • on June 29, 2011, 17:26 GMT

    "Take away....half the advertising"? Yes! brilliant idea! Charge the spectators more per ticket, then!

  • pradeep_dealwis on June 29, 2011, 15:13 GMT

    two ball at each end is stupid. It takes away the spinning options and reverse swing. That's not helping the bowlers, it killing them.

  • Kumar_cricket on June 29, 2011, 15:11 GMT

    Remove Power plays and increase number of overs for the best bowlers in the side.This will help to spice up the one day format.

  • on June 29, 2011, 15:08 GMT

    What about when Trott blocked the throw with his bat in an ODI in Australia? Will that be obstruction now? Because it was awesome.

  • on June 29, 2011, 14:39 GMT

    all the changes are not needed. What we want is to have cricket played with the human element intact. All the ICC is doing to make cricket difficult .What they should do is make match referees redundant and increase the technology.. Players careeres are under pressure to perform and if given a bad decision can them. Introduce the technology and the money saved from paying match refeees can help pay for it. You want to spread the game but do not want to expand the number of teams in the World Cup .

  • on June 29, 2011, 13:35 GMT

    Take away power plays, fielding restrictions, tv review, bowling restrictions, dead wickets, half the advertising. 'Re-introduce' REAL cricket. Simple. May the best team win! Thanks England for this great game. Damn you ICC for ruining it!!!

  • Sanoop_r on June 29, 2011, 13:31 GMT

    Does the obstruction rule mean that batsmen will not be allowed to run in between the stumps and the throwing line of the fielder?

  • on June 29, 2011, 13:30 GMT

    Exciting cricket is a 'fair' battle between bat and ball. NOT about fielding and bowling restrictions. It's about the accomplishment of overcoming quality bowling relative to the ability of both players. Tight contests, etc. That is what made me fall in love with the game. I only started losing interest as the administrators kept 'tweaking' rules. Best ODI's Ive ever watched have mostly come from modest totals.

  • on June 29, 2011, 11:34 GMT

    2 new balls from each end? Then what about the spinners? This is assassination of the spinners, batsmen and cricket. Unfair !

  • itisme on June 29, 2011, 10:21 GMT

    All the changes are welcome, except the one regarding run out for obstructing the field. This is really dodgy. This will raise huge controversy when used. The most I liked is the law about the powerplays and the banning of runners. The law to ban the skipper for two offences pertaining to slow over rate is good. But I would prefer the penalty scheme used in the 1996 WC held in IND-PAK-SL. In there the fielding side was compelled to complete the 50 overs, but they were allowed only those many overs which they completed within the stipulated time while chasing. For example, if they had completed 48 overs by the stipulated time, they will be required still to bowl 50 overs but when their term comes for batting, will get only 48 overs to chase down the target. This way the match will be at stake, rather than monetary loss, and the captains will be serious about it.

  • andrew-schulz on June 29, 2011, 10:14 GMT

    Great point gmsjgmsj. Powerplays taken from over 46-50 have resulted in exciting cricket. This additional legislation comes out of ignorance of what is exciting cricket and what is not. Decisions made this week are going to be looked back on as some of the most farcical in the history of the game.

  • Sumeet.Gupta on June 29, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    for goodness sake, please change the rule where the fielder diving to save the ball going for a boundary as a four if he touches the boundary rope with ball in contact. It is the most time consuming rule, where the third umpire needs to see different angles to confirm. If the ball does not touch the rope, it's not a 4. As simple as that. How does it matter where the fielder is and whether his leg is touching the rope or not, even though the ball is 4 feet away from the rope! Have it as in soccer, if the ball does not crosses the lines, it's in. Simple. I agree that for sixes may be we can continue with the existing rules. But please someone have this boundary rule removed.

  • on June 29, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    Why not make it a law of the game that the non-striking batsman must remain in his ground until the ball leaves the bowler's hand? If, on appeal, the umpire (or, in televised matches, third umpire) decides that the batsman has left his ground before the ball is bowled, then the batsman is given out, regardless of whether the bowler broke the wicket or not. Seems much fairer to the bowling side to me.

  • gmsjgmsj on June 29, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    How do powerplays only between 16 & 40th overs make the game unpredictable? In the recent ODI series and WC 2011, the powerplay taken in the 45th over onwards changed the course of the match.. what could make it more more interesting is the fielding team using 5 outside the circle during their powerplays and thereby challenging the batters to still go over the top!

    Another idea to make ODI more spicy is the option of fileding captain to give 2 extra overs to the best bowler of his choice. This further evens the balance between bat & ball.

    Does new ball from each end signal the death of spinners in ODI fomat...why not also allow captains to use 2 old balls from each end in case of teams packed with spinners and part timers like India..?!

  • anshu.s on June 29, 2011, 8:48 GMT

    It's high time that in limited over game they allow for two subsitutions to be allowed meaning at the toss there will be a thirteen players in the match day squad, but with only 11 allowed to field and bat at a time like it normally happens.This will put an end to debate of 5 bowlers and 7 batsmen forever and encourage maximum competetion beetween bat and ball and it will also make for interesting viewing.

  • on June 29, 2011, 8:43 GMT

    Why we have to allow a Johnty type fielder as substitute to a butter finger. In recent time, India fielded Raina as substitute in the WC, when he was not in the playing 11 against tiring Sachin/Sehwag. Of course, the other teams are also using such tactics. This also needs to be considered if runners are not allowed for the batsmen.

  • himanshu.team on June 29, 2011, 7:49 GMT

    The rule of obstructing the field while changing course during running, whatever it means I dont know, is absolutely rubbish. What happens if batsmen still chose to run in the middle of the pitch to avoid the bowler or WK getting a clean shot at the stumps at oppsite end. In a way it is obstructing the field but he is not changing course. So what happens then? Moreover, weather Umpires should be bsuy looking at the crease or should they worry more about the course the two batsmen take. If there is an appeal they will always refer it to 3rd Umpire.

    Just not making any sense to me at all.

  • Chris_Howard on June 29, 2011, 6:12 GMT

    Mankadding ok? Why? Why not just empower the square leg umpire to watch the runner and call a short run if he deems he's left the crease early? Given the angles, the runner would have to be clearly out of the crease for the ump to see, so no chance of error and it would catch those clearly trying to get an excessive advantage.

  • on June 29, 2011, 5:23 GMT

    whatta genius i say...the run out rule is the most nonsensical thing ive ever heard coming from the BCC...oops, i mean ICC :) How do they gauge intention when a batsmen changes paths (while running)? It doesn't make any sense, and invariably it will end becoming just another unimportant thing both teams can fight over during the game....also abolishing runners will slow down the game...every batsmen with a cramp will get physical therapy on the pitch versus simply asking for a runner. you'll have batsmen retiring to the pavilion and continuing their innings at a later point, thus disrupting the flow of the game. but hey, the more disruptions there are, the more slots for indian advertisements!

  • Sternblend on June 29, 2011, 5:22 GMT

    They need to do something about the runners getting an advantage but mankading is not the answer. It needs to be up to the square leg umpire who dishes out strikes for batsmen leaving the crease early. The bowler is not allowed over that line when delivering as the batsmen should not be allowed to either. 1st strike two runs deducted, 2nd strike 4 runs deducted, 3rd strike 6 runs deducted any further infringements OUT. Umpire behind the stumps concentrates on the bowler and square leg on the batsmen. As far as runners go they have always been a part of cricket. If you are injured during the game then a runners is allowed (after all it is the gentleman's game) but cramp is not a legitimate reason. There have been some great innings were batsmen are cramping up and have just played through it they would never of thought about calling for a runner they would have just stood and delivered. A ball at each end is the best decision they have ever come up with. Evens balance between bat n ball

  • mogan707 on June 29, 2011, 5:19 GMT

    As it was done before,all the recommendations made by ICC Chief Executive Committee are accepted by ICC executive board.Again this experimenting of rules would go on for a year.Runners rule since it is against batting side would surely be overturned in the near future.Other rules such as obstructing the field during running,and running out while backing up too much could go a long way until the increase in deliberate acts would reverse these decisions.

  • SRT_GENIUS on June 29, 2011, 4:51 GMT

    Next amendment: flexible Powerplays only between 25th and 35th over.. ;-) If they were changing power plays they could've considered a little wider range and maybe 4 over power plays instead of 5 - that would add urgency to a power play.

  • on June 29, 2011, 3:34 GMT

    doing away with substitute runner is a welcome change. i see here arguments raised in this regard citing "fielders having substitutes'. it has to be borne in mind that a substitute runner's presence gives an unfair advantage to the batting side in that, the fatigue arising out of running is simply non existent in the batsman. running takes a heavy toll on the body and it hampers performance. however, there needs to be regulations regarding where sub fielders can field. for this, the playing area needs to be divided into 8 parts: offside, legside, front of square and behind it, infield and outfield. when a substitute comes on to field, the batting side can choose 2 sections of the playing area where the substitute CANNOT field. that way, we can also prevent a gary pratt from fielding in the covers and have a major say in a match result.

  • on June 29, 2011, 1:09 GMT

    Dear ICC, please leave our game alone.

  • Meety on June 29, 2011, 1:08 GMT

    Just on the run out laws - 1. It makes sense to stop batsmen being allowed to change course to obstruct a throw. I suspect where this will head though will be designated corridors for batsmen to run - maybe markings on the pitch??? 2. The backing up law change is a good one. The only concern I have is the use of the word "fairly". I'd say Dwayne Leverock of Bermuda would have a different definition of "fairly" backing up for a QUICK single then say Michael Bevan!!!!!!! They need to be specific as the word "fair" is open to abuse or misinterpretation. Maybe another marker on the pitch or just plain stay in your crease at the non-strikers end until the ball is released by the bowler. I'm all for Mankading - I don't believe the non-striker should be warned. The fact is we're talking about professionals - they know the rules. I think backing up too far is a mild form of cheating! Turns ODIs into tip & run cricket in the middle overs.

  • Amarjitmadan on June 28, 2011, 23:56 GMT

    A few positive steps have been taken in the wider interest of the game.Batsmen backing up can be run out is quite justified but in a way it will avoid some unfortunate dismissals as well for batsmen will be able to return to crease faster.Batsmen trying to avoid getting run out if they obstruct the fielder/bowler can be given out is a bit dodgy and the umpires will have to be extra careful to ensure that the fielder0/bowler has not done that intentionally.(third umpire in doubtful cases could be the right call.Power plays between over 16 and 40 is welcome particularly the batting Power play.Suspending the captain after two matches of slow over rate is a bit harsh and they should have maintained status quo but they can revisit this some times later. Over all a good package considering BCCI have agreed to UDRS eliminating the Ball tracking technology.

  • on June 28, 2011, 22:24 GMT

    Players have been misusing the runner rule. When a top batsmen gets hurt, instead of resting him, he gets to include in the final 11 and calls for a runner when he goes to bat or after playing a few overs. I really appreciate the decision to use of new ball from both the ends. God bless fast bowling !

  • on June 28, 2011, 22:11 GMT

    Even if a batsman cannot have a runner, he can always "retire hurt" get some treatment and come back. I guess the latter would be used more often now..

  • on June 28, 2011, 22:03 GMT

    pathetic pathetic pathetic!!!!y the hell shd runners b not allowed...playin while nt bein able to run n nt fully fit..n fightin to save match shows the class of a batsman...guess wht we shall never see an anwar like 194 again..playin even whn sick n tired...well nt see a kalis innings again who fought his injury also...y does icc want to make cricket a robotic game with no sense of honor and proud....n y do they hate reverse swing n quality spin...whr they r headin with cricket???i hav no idea...ICC is composed of a bunch of dumbheads imaginin money all the time

  • Sabbir007 on June 28, 2011, 21:27 GMT

    Come on ICC! Its a gentleman's game! Allowing a bowler to run out the non striker, demolition of runner........everything will spoiled reputation of cricket! Its not football, its cricket and plz let it be remained as cricket!

  • PV916 on June 28, 2011, 20:58 GMT

    I am interested by the comments about the two new ball rule being a nightmare for spinners. I seem to recall that one of the successes of the 92 World Cup was Dipak Patel bowling the first ten overs for NZ. Also how many teams used a spinner to open the bowling at the last World Cup? Pace off the ball worked in Powerplay overs and bounce is as much a weapon for spinners with a harder ball as anything. Will be fireworks when the first batsman is given out "changing course" under the new run out rule. Abuse of the use of runners has caused their demise. They were being used by the lazy as much as the lame. Right to get rid. Whoever abolished the "mankading" rule in the first place gave licence to cheating. Right to restore it. The reason for the new ball is to keep the ball visible. The whole problem with the white ball is that it discolours. 25-over old ball will help. ICC has had a rare day of sense and all these changes will improve the game.

  • bobmartin on June 28, 2011, 20:46 GMT

    Since when has the ICC had the authority to alter the Laws of Cricket. Whilst it can introduce regulations pertaining to matches played under it's auspices, I would have thought the MCC would take a dim view of blatant alterations to the basic Laws of the game, for instance the banning of runners which is enshrined in Law 2.

  • cricpolitics on June 28, 2011, 20:41 GMT

    So batsman is injured and he can not be allowed to have a runner however a fielder is injured you can have a substitute? Why these double standards? There have been many controversies over the substitute fielders as well in the past.

  • serious-am-i on June 28, 2011, 19:16 GMT

    For spinner its a nightmare, how in the world spinner is going to get swing and how are we going to see reverse swing are big mysteries. Runner law is pathetic to say the least, if a player is hurt he can't continue and he has to leave ?

  • indiaworldchamps2011 on June 28, 2011, 18:34 GMT

    all these changes are gud except the new balls on both ends... it will take reverse swing and spin pretty much out of the equation in a one day game...coz by the time ball is 20 overs old we wud be in the slog overs by then and the spinners are rarely used in those overs...

  • D.Nagarajan on June 28, 2011, 16:39 GMT

    The powerplays!!!! Well never really understood the thought behind it , maybe at best just an opportunity for overhyped flat track bullies to clobber the ball over short boundaries with fielding restrictions in place as well so quite naturally the bowling powerplay made absolutely no sense and fielding captains wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible so finish off the agony for the emaciated bowlers. Batting powerplay was still better as it confused the batsmen which was welcome and it did account for the most thrilling moments in the recent world cup. Changing the overs when these are applied will just add to the confusion but at least the ODI will no longer be predictable!!!!

  • amarkin on June 28, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    ESPNcricinfo staff

    "The Andrew Strauss - Graeme Smith confrontation in the 2009 Champions League is one of the many recent controversies over the usage of runners"

    Is it Champions Trophy or League ? :P

  • mihir_nam on June 28, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    Good Rule ICC for Runner..now Batsmen if they are fit they can play ..But to be fair these rules are against Batting side..Make some rules for Bowling side also .. Like Substitute ..Catch taken by substitute should be not valid..and Substitute should field outside circle only..So less chances of Saving singles and runouts by bringing good fielders as substitute

  • D.Nagarajan on June 28, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    For the first time in nearly 15 years there is a sensible decision by ICC of allowing again the use of the new white ball from both ends. Hopefully we can get back to the golden days of ODI cricket that we had in the early and mid eighties. Bowlers can really swing the ball for long periods and the game will be really beautiful which means it will be an even contest between bat and ball. The next world cup will belong to the team with the best bowling attack and the bowlers will be regular and fulltime pace bowlers not part-timers.

  • on June 28, 2011, 16:27 GMT

    No more runners!!! Now Aussies really can get back to the top in ODIs !!! :) we might see deliberate tactics to injure players (of course legally), partly injured batsmen will now be seen sitting outside...if he is a Sachin or Ponting or legends-in-making..it is always a loss for the viewer, since batting is not mere running between wickets.. run-outs resulting from presence of a runner will be missed for sure... Substitute fielder in tests could be next in line ready for the axe... now that will make Ponting happy :)..

  • gmoturu on June 28, 2011, 16:25 GMT

    oh man......other countries are already confused with the laws and these laws make even more confusing. KEEP IT SIMPLE.

    PS: CRICKET IS NOT A SILLY GAME. ITS THE PLAYERS & OFFICIALS THAT MAKE IT SILLY.

    thanks england for inventing such a beautiful game.

  • Valavan on June 28, 2011, 15:58 GMT

    The last 2 laws will backfire most of subcontinent players who try to hide and obstruct run outs and also the non strikerbacking up unfairly, Mahela and harbhajan will be dismissed most times for their running with such laws

  • cricpolitics on June 28, 2011, 15:41 GMT

    The run out tweak seems ridiculous and was not needed. It will just create more controversies in the field. Why not just ban the batsmen from running all together.

  • on June 28, 2011, 15:29 GMT

    too many new funny laws.......

  • SaudAlvi on June 28, 2011, 15:05 GMT

    How about something like - give the team 2 white balls, you can use 1 ball for max 30 overs - the capt. decided when to use which ball. ( ** P.s. Make balls that stay whiter solve that tech. challenge instead of making stupid changes to the game)

    This was you can ball with a new/ish ball every power play if you like.

    These white ball swings early and spins more - in my view - still its a bit unfair. All rules being discussed are stupid in my view :)

  • Kricket_Fan on June 28, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    Let look at this objectively...Cricket is the longest Gamed played...5 days test and 1 dayers, except 20/20. Yet we are unable to make subsitute. ICC should look at ways of allowing teams to make subsitute for injured players and stop trying to make this more boreing than it already is.... y should team be at a disadvantage if a player got injured during the game. Also baters right is to protect they wicket that what the games has always being about y should u get out for running it the throwing path of te fielder?... Nonsence! once the fielders not obstructed from fielding the ball that should be fine.

  • khan-touch-em on June 28, 2011, 14:14 GMT

    The Governing Body should stop faffing around with such pathectic intricrate changes. They should making the game simpler, more interesting, and more accessible. Their duty is to promote, protect and develop the game. General spectators are just comming to terms with the changes implemeted 5 years ago. Their mindset is far from an International governing body.

  • on June 28, 2011, 14:13 GMT

    @Prem Raja: Although being a neutral I found your comment tad distasteful. You just had to vent out your frustration against Pakistan, recalling a 14 year old match. Good job :)

  • on June 28, 2011, 13:59 GMT

    Some positive decisions has been taken.We'll know the results of the changed system in the next 6 months.Based on that,ICC has to decide it again howfar the system is useful?

  • trishul_31 on June 28, 2011, 13:49 GMT

    i don't understand the purpose of the Bowling powerplay. the batting powerplay gives the batting team a stong advantage (easier to hit boundries) but the bowling powerplay offers no advantage to the bowling side (hence them taking it from the 11th -15th over every game. I think the rule chenge wont do anythign for the bowling powerplay as it will now be taken in the 16-20th over everytime. The ICC should change the powerplay to give na advantage to the bowling side (such as an extra fielder allowed (either outside the circle or letting the 12th man field as well for hte 5 overs).

  • camouflage on June 28, 2011, 13:08 GMT

    I always thought that the rule of having runners on ODIs was lame. Players need to be fit/athletic themselves. That is the whole idea of 'sports'.

  • on June 28, 2011, 12:55 GMT

    what is deemed as "unfair backing up" i dont think these rules are clear enough.

  • Raghu_LegCutter on June 28, 2011, 12:47 GMT

    Using two new balls from both ends will be unfair to the spinners. This decision needs a review.

  • on June 28, 2011, 12:39 GMT

    I totally agree with Mr.Kalpit Dave. You got a point. Bowler bowls an unplayable delivery but still goes for runs. It also should be abolished.

  • naudurivsm on June 28, 2011, 12:11 GMT

    But in all of these discussion why is ICC or any board for that matter is NOT discussing the standardization of equipment, the field size to say with a 80 meters radius or 75 meters radius from the center of the pitch in play. this is always been talked about for years that grounds are samller and/or grounds are larger. also the pitch making criteria. there should be some standards being imposed on these as well.

  • SudharsanVM on June 28, 2011, 11:13 GMT

    some years back there was a policy for slow overrate by reducing the no of overs in second innings for batting team. That can be taken into consideration. It will make game somewhat interesting.

  • on June 28, 2011, 11:10 GMT

    All changes great.. only to make ODIs more exciting. One thing is still missing and strange nobody including great cricket commentrators brought this point forward specially for limitied overs cricket. The "LEG BYE", Bowler balls a very good ball, He beats batsman hits on the body of the batsman and they run through.. Few more runs added to the total for a ball which batsman could not play.. no mistake from bowling or fielding side. Abolish the "LEG BYE".. If the ball hits you except your bat or glove its dead ball than.

  • on June 28, 2011, 10:56 GMT

    ICC has taken an unfair decision by abolishing runners for injured batsmen in international cricket.

  • on June 28, 2011, 10:35 GMT

    I am happy with pretty much all the changes however, being a spinner myself. Two new balls will make it harder for spinners so that is a bit annoying. I love the new runners ruling, if you want to continue your innings. Toughen up! If your too injured, just go off. A question, once they go off for injury, will they still be allowed to come back on? In my opinion, they should be allowed to come back on.

  • on June 28, 2011, 10:24 GMT

    banning a runner is the right move. I remember saaed anwar using it so effectively to score 194 in chepauk and it looked so un fair to me but sachin the captain then was too soft and allowed it

  • melvn on June 28, 2011, 10:04 GMT

    Please make the game simple,dont make it very complex.Fielding restrictions for the first 15 overs ,which we have used untill 2004/2005 was very simple.Scrap these powerplays.Removing legbyes would be good, I guess. Why should we gift the batting team with runs if the batsman is not able to connect the ball, instead the bowler should be credited. If they cant stop experimentation, try that in T20 because it is an another scrap.

  • jackiethepen on June 28, 2011, 10:03 GMT

    The so called controversial part of DRS is accepted by the entire world except India. This is quite ridiculous as another important element of preventing wrong decisions has been removed. I would have just let India suffer from not having DRS. After a few awful decisions that could have been overturned they would have changed their minds.

  • on June 28, 2011, 9:57 GMT

    New balls from both ends will be fine in Eng, Aus, Sa but in the subcontinent and other countries with slow wickets it is just going to make life easy for the batsmen because the new hard ball is easy to hit compared to when it gets old and spins.

  • vish57 on June 28, 2011, 9:48 GMT

    T20 format should not be a replica of ODI; Limit 5 overs a bowler instead of 4 so that the batsmen are challenged with best bowlers; bring batting and bowling power play of 3 overs each instead of predictable first 6 over power play. Third Umpire should be empowered to revise a blatant mistake of field umpire even if not challenged. Curb short run tactics to dupe the rule to retain strike as was done in IPL recently. Remove free hit rule for a foot fault no ball which is batsmen friendly. Bring flexibility to leg side wide which is rigid now. There is no forum to suggest to ICC or BCCI; They run the game, we all to continue watch with patriotism. India is yet to have a proper ODI tournament all 3 existing ODI tournament of BCCI is a farse without competitive spirits. Have a domestic calendar for all to participate not limiting to IPL. While players cover injuries to play in IPL, once established avoid Ranji/Duleep Trophy tournaments, BCCI to introspect but they lack cricket wisdom.

  • on June 28, 2011, 9:38 GMT

    I dont want to see cricket more about rules and less about play. Onle basic rules should stay and rest should be left for captains to decide. Only sensible decisions of those taken are, one banning the use of runners and two, DRS related decisions. Too many regulations will kill the game off.

  • I.RAGHURAM on June 28, 2011, 9:34 GMT

    Another suggestion to make the game more bowler / fielder friendly.....Rules in T20 can be amended so that both the batsman can be out of a single ball. Since T20 is a game of fast running between the wickets, there is always a possibility of both the batsman stranded in the middle of the pitch. In such a senerio, an alert fielder can run both the players out. It is also possible that a catch is taken and the wicket at the bowlers end is broken to run out the runner who is outside the crease. ANY TAKERS ????

  • on June 28, 2011, 9:12 GMT

    Abolishing runners from the game is a good decision as it will reduce confusion plus the captains of the fielding team won't be made to look like villains for not allowing a runner. Enhancing the number of teams from 10 to 14 was always a welcome change as we all could see how stupid the decision of reducing teams was in the first place. New balls from both ends, have to wait and see how that turns out to be. Power Plays to be taken only between 16th and 40th over, why? The teams should have the final say as to when they want to take the PP not for ICC to decide upon it. Lastly why was there no decision on the champions trophy? Does that tournament still exists?

  • Bollo on June 28, 2011, 8:59 GMT

    @Anand Krishnan. I agree wholeheartedly. I think it`s a pity that the rule for runners wasn`t clarified/strengthened rather than abolished. Far too often it has been abused for cramp, tiredness, or sheer laziness - not the reason it was introduced. However I think the issue of continually substituting bowlers/fielders (England particularly at fault here) purely for a rest (and often substituted for players outside the test squad) was of more pressing concern. This is obviously outside the spirit of the rules.

  • on June 28, 2011, 8:51 GMT

    As a true and hardliner cricket lover, I welcome the changes made by ICC Chief Executives Committee particularly the recommendation of 'New balls from both ends in ODIs'. Though I am not been able to follow Cricket on regular basis due to the busyness of expatriate work culture and bachelor's life, I often find myself sleeping in Cricinfo to revamp my cricket madness. Initially, I was perplexed by DRS, Powerplay, however, I refused to admit my unawareness about these latest ideas. The decision to use new balls from both ends will make a definite impact on the game since the fast bowlers can make maximum use of it. Holding a new ball is a dream of every fast bowler, the seam, the swing and the fear creates it and when it delivers from both ends, the match will be fascinating to watch. I love to see another change, two bouncers in over, let's wait and dream a day where fast bowlers are dominating over batsmen.

  • eskay-2011 on June 28, 2011, 8:31 GMT

    i dont think it's a good idea not to allow a runner for injured batsman. then why should there be a substitute for injured fielder as well? It's quite natural in every team sport to have substitutes.

  • pull2open on June 28, 2011, 8:23 GMT

    The fact that ICC constantly seems to need to change the regulations surrounding ODIs suggests to me that this format has had its day. Can't we keep things simple? If the innings are boring in the middle, then enforce 'powerplay' fielding rules throughout the innings. After all if attacking fields are mandatory, giving the batsmen the opportunity if they dare to score more runs, won't that lead to higher totals and/or more wickets? Don't see the downside myself. Presumably batsmen unable to run will now be required to retire hurt. What about a strokemaker genuinely hurt whilst fielding in the first innings and thereafter unable to run? Are the side batting second expected to manage without his contribution in their dig? A badly thought out change. The Laws do cover this area: they just need to be properly and rigorously applied!

  • crickstats on June 28, 2011, 8:10 GMT

    @I.RAGHURAM Already in t20 cricket, fewer players get chances especially with the bat, if your openers, 3 and 4 bat well, which normally is the case, rest don't why do we need supersubs,

  • sukuviju on June 28, 2011, 7:53 GMT

    How to handle slow over rate in a 50 over match?

    Instead of penalising the captain for slow over rate, i suggest you add 10 runs for every 5 minutes of delay. If the fielding team finishes its quota of 50 overs 20 mins over the stipulated time, then simply add 40 runs to the batting teams total.

    For the team bowling second, check the time taken to bowl the first 40 overs and accordingly adjust the batting teams target if the fielding team is bowling slow.

  • I.RAGHURAM on June 28, 2011, 7:18 GMT

    Super Substitute rule can be brought back in T20 by allowing unlimited substitutions......The entire 15 players could bat or ball or field, with the maximum limit of 11 batsman / bowlers / fielders. This was generate more interest in the game, since it would be possible for both the batting and the bowling teams to come back form hopeless positions..... As a beginning it could be trialled in IPL since it is already a domestic tournament. ANY TAKERS ????

  • Joji_ on June 28, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    Looks like all the rules are geared up for making bowlers more miserable !

  • on June 28, 2011, 7:02 GMT

    Abolition of runners is not a gud idea...@ashu I completely disagree wid u as in other sports if a player is injured there is an option called replacement.. in soccer we have 3 replacements...we dont have those in cricket .. Instead of taking wickets bowlers like shoib,brett lee will try to hurt the batsmen so that he wont be playing d remaining match.... as dale said new ball from each end needs more explanation....

  • on June 28, 2011, 6:41 GMT

    I support everything but this, "restricting the number of fielders outside the circle to four in non-Power play overs." Come on ICC what are you guys thinking? Are you guys trying to turn ODI in to a runs feast game. T20 is not ODI just like AFL is not NFL. 3 fielders are already allowed outside the 30 yards circle during the batting and bowling power play so why restrict to just 4 during the remaining 30 overs? Are we doing this to support Indian Batsmen? Why are trying to turn Cricket into a Runs Feast game? Why not just cut down the fielders from 11 to 9? Why not turn all 50 overs into power plays. Think logically ICC and if you guys really want Cricket to improve then why not give 2 five overs sections to bowling side where don't be any fielding restrictions? This would be so cool and balance the game of Cricket.

  • segga-express on June 28, 2011, 4:14 GMT

    I do support the introduction of 2 new balls in ODIs, however, will this lead to a decline in quality spin bowlers at international level, especially in countries where spin is unpopular - e.g. England, South Africa, Australia (currently) and the West Indies - due to the shine lasting longer? Personally I hope it rejuvenates the art of swing bowling and leads to a more even balance between bat and ball. Nevertheless, another fear is that with a harder ball for longer in conditions that aren't conducive to swing batsmen will plunder even greater scores and 350 - 400 will be more common occurrences. Regarding runners - are they really such a scourge of the game that they require outlawing? If a batsman is injured he should be allowed to continue with a runner, if for no greater reason than the immense entertainment that is watching all 3 batsmen finish up at the same end, argue over whose fault it is and then again over who is out.

  • on June 28, 2011, 3:54 GMT

    to all the ppl who don't like that runners have been banned . this rule is good as injured players leave the game in every sport , why should cricket be any different ?..... bowlers can`t have a replacement , why should batsmen be allowed a runner . if he can play through the pain then good othewise he should leave the field....pretty simple . i don't know why people here don't like this ruling. its the best rule introduced in cricket since i was born (88).

  • on June 28, 2011, 3:36 GMT

    @Javagalsrinath, Heyyy man! R U serious of omitting LBW from Cricket??? or Is dis jst a joke?? Walsh, Cris Martin and few other tail ender may b cherishing to score 300+ run in Test and few centuries in ODIs if dis plan gnna xecuted......LOL

  • PremZtalks on June 28, 2011, 3:15 GMT

    ICC should go with a 12 (10 + 2 Asso.) team tournament and a round robin league. Cricket should be globalized and reducing the tournament to 10 team is the last thing anyone would do. I dont know What the hell is unusual of having a few one sided games in a World tournament. Haven't we seen miserable WC finals involving Aus and SL/Pak, Haven't we seen poor matches involving NZ/ ENG/WI/IND... IF IPL could be run with 74 matches , ICC should be able to better organize the showpiece Event. I would say going for a 10 team tournament will prove/highlight ICC's inability and poor organizing committee...

  • himanshu.team on June 28, 2011, 3:00 GMT

    After a long long time, some good decisions are made here. I welcome the banning of runners, use of two new balls, making DRS mandatory while leaving out the controversial part, and the tweak in powerplay rules. These will all make cricket much more exciting. I see most of the critisism is coming of banning the use of runners. It is a very good decision in my opinion. If you see any other sport, if a player is injured, he/she goes out of the field. It is only in cricket that we have a thing like, I am unfit to run but can hit the ball so I will bat. It is ridiculous. If you are unfit, go back to the dressing room, get treated and come back on when the next wicket falls. Retired hurt does not mean you are out. There should be no scenario where two batsmen are scoring runs against the name of one.

  • cricket_for_all on June 28, 2011, 2:48 GMT

    @JavagalSrinath: What?. If no LBW we will have soccer game for sure.

  • Meety on June 28, 2011, 1:24 GMT

    Perhaps if a player requires a runner during a match, he is automatically suspended from playing in their next scheduled International match - whether that be a Test, ODI or T20, regardless of whether the next match is in 1 or 2 mths time. -- -- -- The only issue I see with this is that it disadvantages the side batting 2nd - particularly in T20s & ODIs. Batting first,a batsmen is as fresh as he is ever going to be & is unlikely to need a runner until late in his innings (cramp wise). Batting 2nd(particulalry an alrounder Shakib, Watto & Kallis), will not be batting fresh & more prone to it. Maybe allow for 3 overs? @Ashish Saxena - ah you have hit a sore point for me. Didn't cost us the Ashes really but it was annoying that this was raised prior to the series & nothing was done. I'm not against sub-fielders, but in tests it has to be like for like. A big pace bowler must be replaced by a big pace bowler. Perhaps there is an option for the opposition captain to pick the fielder???

  • Shafin1987 on June 28, 2011, 1:19 GMT

    At least in test cricket ICC can allow runners.

  • cric-07 on June 28, 2011, 0:54 GMT

    @Javagalsrinath- if LBWs are removed from cricket then i myself might be not out the whole day by covering the stumps lol.

  • TRUPTESH18880 on June 28, 2011, 0:27 GMT

    these changes can make lot of confusion not only for the spectators but for players as well. cramps is one type of injury to the body and it can happen even after facing first ball. and its very difficult situation for the umpires as well because umpires are responsible for duty of care of the players as well so this change is totally absurd. if batsman have cramp and he will forced to run himself it can cause more problem for him and not only that if its a quarter final of semi final he can lose next game because of that injury (cramp) and it can cause to team. so last decision should be made by the umpires on the field.

  • on June 28, 2011, 0:13 GMT

    I am Unhappy about this New Powerplay rule.It shouldn't been changed.That dont make a match Exciting to the end.I hope ICC will re think about this New Powerplay rule.

  • fazald on June 27, 2011, 21:48 GMT

    It is a very good idea to ban the use of runners because in most instances it is faked by the batsman unless he has been injured badly due to a severe blow to any part of his body below his waist. However he is expected to take necessary precautions by wearing protective gear to prevent such injury. Other than that he should never be allowed to use a runner which means that he was either carrying an injury already or physically unfit to play prior to the game. Throughout the history of world cricket many teams have taken undue advantage of this loophole by sending their best runner in such circumstances & many victories have been achieved by the batting side. The only option for the batsman should be to retire hurt & not allowed to resume his innings later on which would be quite a deterrent .He may be allowed to bat in the second innings only if he has been on the field throughout when the opposition has to bat again.

  • on June 27, 2011, 20:47 GMT

    the only thing I have to say is that if runners are going to be outlawed then I guess the 12th man should be allowed to participate fully in a match(bat, bowl or field). I honestly dont see the need for all these tweaks. The new innovations have permitted higher scores generally in ODI's

  • SRT_GENIUS on June 27, 2011, 20:34 GMT

    @Vijay Srinivas : Brilliant idea, I will try it our gullee cricket next.

  • segga-express on June 27, 2011, 20:31 GMT

    In response to Javagal Srinath's proposal to remove the LBW laws: are you crazy? Do you want to see all batsmen around the world just standing in front of their stumps taking bowled out of the equation and sending the game even further against the bowler? LBW is one of the idiosyncrasies that makes cricket such a beautiful game. Without LBW bowling will lose the art of attempting to beat the inside edge to send the ball crashing into the stumps, or the pads that block the way. If the rules are too complicated for Chinese, Spanish and Americans to understand then so be it. We have a large enough international contingent as it is, especially with Ireland battering on the door to be let in. I don't want to see the game I love changed just to accommodate a few new nations who don't understand the beauty or history of the game.

  • segga-express on June 27, 2011, 20:23 GMT

    Banning runners is a ludicrous decision. What happens if a batsman breaks his foot, meaning he can't run, but feels able to continue batting? He would be compelled to retire hurt, to the detriment of his team, or he would continue batting leaving himself and his partner unable to score other than through boundaries and long singles. Furthermore, cramp can arrive at any point, after 3 minutes or 3 hours or never at all. I have had serious problems with cramp over the years (never requiring a runner) but I have suffered cramp leaving me unable to walk for 15 minutes after just a few minutes batting in the nets. It is a nonsense to suggest that you should not be allowed a runner for any condition, and cramp is a condition. However, the players should stop using the runner as soon (if ever) as they feel able to do so.

  • on June 27, 2011, 20:11 GMT

    @Ramesh Bulusu, well said that man, totally agree. @Vijay Srinivas,I disagree with every word, would make cricket a farce if implemented!

  • bobmartin on June 27, 2011, 19:59 GMT

    I haven't read all 120 comments that have been made so far on these points... but one thing springs to mind... Firstly a runner is allowed under the provisions of Law 2.. The MCC are the sole guardians of the Laws of Cricket, so I don't believe the ICC have the authority to change the Law. I remember the ICC once trying to change the result of the test forfeited by Pakistan and they had to retract that decision after the MCC put its foot down.

  • on June 27, 2011, 19:40 GMT

    If not in the ODI format, atleast in the T20 format, we need that each and every player bat as well as bowl. Hence, each player is allowed to bowl only 2 overs, making it that all 10 players barring the wicketkeeper will bowl. Also, each batsman is allowed to play only 12 balls at a time, then he has to be replaced compulsorily, and if he is not out, he can return to bat at the end on rotational basis.

    This would mean ALL PLAYERS WILL BAT AS WELL AS ALL PLAYERS WILL BOWL.

  • on June 27, 2011, 19:23 GMT

    Instead of tweaking the game beyond recognition, why doesn't the ICC first address the most prevalent problem in Cricket... putting a cap on the no of ODIs / Tests / T20s a team can plan in an year. There is simply too much cricket these days which puts us off. Planning proper seasons for cricket and making tournaments more useful would be much better than these tweaks.

  • on June 27, 2011, 19:17 GMT

    No runners.. then there should be no 12th man substitution for fielding side as well.. most times 12th man was brought on for lesser reasons than cramps..like the change of shirt for bowler..or ask Australia , they probably blame the 2005 Ashes loss to 12th man.

    I think Umpire is the judge for runner or substitution, any batsman playing more than 3 hrs should be allowed, then the cramps may be genuine.. like any fielder might want to put their feet up after one session..

  • bavishek on June 27, 2011, 19:02 GMT

    34 over ball change is excellent if its test match style. Teams will be eligible to change the ball after 34th over, but captains may continue using the old ball to help spinners or reverse swingers. It will be a tough call for captains but can be interesting.

  • JavagalSrinath on June 27, 2011, 18:42 GMT

    Without runners, Ranatunga's family may never play cricket again. I have seen the fat man used to take runner whenever he is past 10 runs. Jayasuriya or Mahanama used to run for him, probably that is the reason why these 2 guys are still slim.

  • on June 27, 2011, 18:41 GMT

    who are these idiots making the decisions in the icc i mean following up a completely biased future tours program to no runners which have been in use for over a century, constant tweaks in the game are costing cricket a lot and making it a more complicated game no wonder many people prefer football with simpler rules and less tweaking in the game.

  • JavagalSrinath on June 27, 2011, 18:33 GMT

    One more thing needed to improve ODI cricket is to remove LBW and leg byes, thereby unnecessary need of DRS can be eliminated. This might generate more interest in cricket as I have spoken to chinese, americans and Spanish they all say is cricket rules are difficult for them to understand. Removing complicated rules related to LBW will definitely help cricket grow.

  • on June 27, 2011, 18:21 GMT

    screw fines and suspensions... bring back the good ol' days where the side was docked OVERS for slow rates!!

  • r1m2 on June 27, 2011, 17:41 GMT

    I agree with most of the decisions, but would like to say all the decisions are better than previous ones.

    The one I do not fully agree with is the powerplay. I do not thinking giving teams options on choosing the powerplay slot is a good idea. Given that we must have 50 overs of cricket, I think only way to spruce it up is, having forced power-play in the middle overs. Say, 21st to 30th.

    I really do not think there's a way to make ODIs more exciting in general, through a tweak of these rules. But forced powerplay would be better than a choice.

    2 bouncers in ODIs sound good to me. I actually think if a batsman doesn't know how to play bouncer (duck or sway or pull or hook), they should not be considered a batsman. A beamer should be illegal, but nothing wrong with bouncers. But 2 is better than 1, so that's good.

    Very few bowlers under very specific circumstance can actually do reverse swing, so I am not concerned about two new balls from the beginning. Love the use of both ends.

  • on June 27, 2011, 17:19 GMT

    I still dont understand what is this NO runners, if a batsman cant run, he should be allowed to take a runner, ultimately the bowler has to get the batsman out and not the runner , any new guy comes in is only allowed to run for the batsman , he doesnt bat. what if in the middle of the innings if the batsman gets cramps, will some one from ICC come and play the innings, we know the amount of cricket played in these days and still why these useless rules.

    cricket is game that is played for almost 7 hours ( 50 over format) and if there is any slower over rate they may play 10- 15 mins more and why should some on be punished for this, what is the problem in playing 10 more mins, who is compalining about this, i dont think the viewers rae complaining?

  • Srivatsan27 on June 27, 2011, 17:12 GMT

    having new balls at both ends is a very interesting rule. If we have to make ODI`s interesting, I think the first thing we need to avoid is poor quality spinners bowling in the middle overs with an old ball on a slow pitch where the ball doesn`t come on to the bat. I think quality spinners can cope with this rule. It does take reverse swing out of the equation but it brings in proper swing bowling into the equation to a larger extent which is good IMO

  • yorkslanka on June 27, 2011, 17:05 GMT

    why are the icc trying to over complicate cricket?surely this is going to put off new fans to cricket?i dont like the idea of having two new balls personally, doesnt that count against those who can reverse swing the ball? also powerplays are a waste of time if you ask me, scrap them and let the captains run their own fielding sides and formations...

  • howizzat on June 27, 2011, 17:04 GMT

    All are good decisions. Maximum of 2 bowlers should be allowed to bowl 12 overs each. Make it mandatory to use a minimum of 6 bowlers and should bowl at least 4 overs.

  • on June 27, 2011, 17:04 GMT

    Ok i understand the DRS issue but the new ball form both end, maximum no. of fielders during powerplay overs, runners, introducing the new ball, i mean is ICC thinking by doing all this it will make cricket interesting, i assure you cricket is at its best now, and ICC will only do damage then amend. Introducing the new ball in the 34th over is a very good decision, so are the no. of fielders outside the 30-yard circle during power play overs. This is what happens when people go head over heels on making something better. truly some of the worst decisions i have seen people make specially in a game like cricket

  • sarveshgolechha on June 27, 2011, 16:49 GMT

    no runners, ball change or new balls at both ends...powerplay decisions...all ok...but the thing i see missing is earlier when a team take more than the given time to bowl the quota of overs used to get lesser number of overs to achieve the target...that was the best penalty ...as in present times no body cares for monetary penalties and a match ban wuldnt matter much as there are teams with more than 1 player who can captian the side ....so bring back the old rule ...it would also get back the discipline may be....try it....i just hope it comes back

  • Sameer_cricfan on June 27, 2011, 16:28 GMT

    Two new balls at two end is no way going to help bowlers. The art of genuine spin and reverse swing which is already rare will vanish totally. Slower balls would become less effective. After there are very fdw pitches asisting bowler these days. Mark my word guyz this change will stay as lomg as "SUPERSUB" did. Other changes are fine.

  • on June 27, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    two new balls from both end.wat the hell is dis.dis will surel kill the excitement of odi's...icc should not bring dis rule..other rules are fair bt dis one is pathetic

  • khalekk on June 27, 2011, 16:02 GMT

    Poor deicisions by the ICC except the powerplay thing.

  • on June 27, 2011, 15:57 GMT

    River Swing seems to be an interesting innovation in its own right. Thanks to whoever invented it.

  • vparisa on June 27, 2011, 15:51 GMT

    If a team bats first and then one of the batsmen get cramps then there will no runners but will there be a substitute fielder for the batsmen? There should not be. Runners and substitute fielders go hand in hand right? There will be complications if we eliminate runners

  • Black-Panther on June 27, 2011, 15:48 GMT

    Don't agree with the decision of having new balls from each end.... It will kill the art of Reverse Swing as well as Spin Bowling...

  • Philip_Gnana on June 27, 2011, 15:47 GMT

    This means that a batsman cannot bat the full 50 overs on a scorching day. My mind boggles. When a batsman is suffering from cramp, how do you expect him to run? This is not cricket. We had a situation recently where Dilshan, could not even stand and had to be carried of the pitch...retired hurt and come back again is it? With so much of changes that is taking place, the question rises about the statistics that is being used for comparisons. Not like for like is it? What has happened to the quality of the balls? Or is it one of those commercial decisions to ensure that the balls dont last the required number of overs? In Test matches we dont seem to be having an issue with balls unless they have gone out of shape or badly damaged. Ball changes should be with a like-for-like replacement. Philip Gnana, New Malden, Surrey

  • on June 27, 2011, 15:41 GMT

    Will the umpires take back the ball after every over? What a waste of time. Poor decision ICC.

  • asterix.gaul on June 27, 2011, 15:35 GMT

    @Venki_indian: Zaheer has shown (perhaps it was against England in the home series in India) that by banging the ball early on and roughing it up, you can get it to reverse around the 15th over itself. So, it can be done, and definitely, depends upon the skill of the bowler. Swing bowling is something special, and even the best of batsmen find it tough. I think it is great to go back to a new ball from each end. At least it gives something to the bowler.

  • m_ilind on June 27, 2011, 15:32 GMT

    Two new balls will add a new dimension to swing and seam movement, once the balls get older! creating more uncertainty to the batsmen, as they can no longer get used to the movement of one ball! giving added advantage to the bowlers ( spinners included). Good move by ICC.

  • cricsure on June 27, 2011, 15:26 GMT

    1.No runners in international cricket - Ridiculous, you can't just ban runners, may be ok for cramping during an innings, what about genuine injuries that happen during the game. 2.New balls from both ends in ODIs - Not sure, spinners & Pacers who rely on reverse will surely suffer but may be ok, the current 34over ball change is probably better than this. 3.Batting and bowling Powerplays to be taken between overs 16 and 40 - May be good in generating more interest & probably reducing the possibility of using this as a strategic option esp the batting powerplay, but it may increase the possibility of using the bowling power play as a strategic option. 4.Captains to be suspended after only two over-rate breaches in a year, as opposed to the existing three - A captain completely relies on how his bowlers bowl it shouldn't just be the captain penalized but it may be difficult for the ICC to put a finger on which bowler should be penalized so not much they can do.

  • on June 27, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    Amazing. The ICC actually has made a few competent decisions! Next up: a pig flying.

  • on June 27, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    No runners, two new balls, two bouncers per over - big blow for sluggish subcontinent batsmen, spin bowlers & reverse swing!

  • on June 27, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    No more runners! pathetic....

  • shannu152 on June 27, 2011, 15:02 GMT

    Instead of the two new balls, the fielding team could be given a choice between new and old ball during the bowling powerplay...

  • CricEshwar on June 27, 2011, 15:01 GMT

    New ball from both the ends is the only change I am not happy about. It works ok only in swinging conditions. In slow pitches of sub continent, it is only an added advantage for the batsmen. If you look back at the number of games where teams get off to brisk starts and gets into a shell once the ball loses it's shine, these scenarios will be reduced. What happens to reverse swing in ODIs. Most teams relied on that aspect in the world cup for a few overs before the ball was changed. Only this change does not seem to go well compared to a number of other well made decisions in this conference.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:52 GMT

    different balls at each end..doesnt it sound a bit silly? i guess its time to say good bye to reverse swing..

  • Saim93 on June 27, 2011, 14:52 GMT

    All of these seem useless!

  • sachin_vvsfan on June 27, 2011, 14:46 GMT

    So batsmen will either get retired hurt or bat later?. Whats this new powerplay rule? I guess now all the teams will try to finish the power plays in first 20 overs else there could be a collapse from over 35.

  • SLsupport on June 27, 2011, 14:46 GMT

    so the icc decides when to take powerplay.In the future both teams will be lead by icc.....captains will not have to do anything.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:45 GMT

    In any case ODIs would require mandatory ball change after 34 overs .. instead now you have a ball which would be max 25 overs old in a match. The good practitioners of reverse-swing can make the ball talk after 20 overs, during the slog overs they'd still have that liberty ( in fact better than a 16 over old ball you'd think!). Regarding the spinners - precious few in the world game these days actually rely on big turn than darting the ball in. Regardless most decisions were good ones, guess we can let some things slide for the time being ..

  • sudhiv on June 27, 2011, 14:41 GMT

    Good stuff! Now, if only they got rid of leg byes!! (runs when the ball is not off the bat has no place in modern cricket).

  • kentjones on June 27, 2011, 14:30 GMT

    I dont have problem with doing away with the runners, or even the powerplays restriction. However the use of new ball from both ends, alters significantly the rules of the game as we know it. We have to be careful with this one. More time should be spent thinking about the effects of two new balls before implementing this.

  • HatsforBats on June 27, 2011, 14:30 GMT

    @ Gizza: I've seen VERY fit players go down with cramp, they can't always be managed. BUT, very happy for runners to go; retire hurt, get some fluids and a massage and come back swinging. Not sure about 2 balls though, sure some bowlers can reverse the ball early but it also gives the batter a harder ball for longer.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:25 GMT

    1. No runners - Good. 2. Two new balls from both ends - Does not change much. Allow a real new ball after over # 35. 3. Optional Power Plays between over 16-40 - Okay 4. DRS w/o ball tracking - Good. Way to go. 5. Slow over rate penalty - Good. 6. WC Qualifiers for associate nations - Best decision!

    Change in bowlers quota: good to experiment. May be two bowlers allowed unlimited overs. Rotaion policy. Let Pak and BD get their fair chance. Then review.

  • Munkeymomo on June 27, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    very exciting proposals. 2 bouncers per over would be a great addition.

  • wiiCricket on June 27, 2011, 14:17 GMT

    Don't like the "no runners" proposal. There may come instances where batsman genuinely deserve to have a runner. Having new balls on both ends may bring a new innovative change for bowlers - as bowlers would like to see some support since the game was becoming more batsman friendly for last decade or so. I am surprised no proposal for 40-over-two-innings was presented. I was hoping for some real change.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:16 GMT

    Well, though we say that its a batsman game, but still I believe that in many ways, bowlers have also some great advantages. One specific example will be that a bowler can complete his quota of overs in any condition if he is willing to and if he is fit. Contrary to that , a batsman has so many ways to get out. I think ICC should also think about it. May there be some rules for bowlers as well. e.g. if a bowler is hit for three successive sixes or fours, he can be out of the game as well. same could be applied to a bowler giving more than 15 runs in consecetive overs etc;;; If Tendulkar can be out on first delivery and not able to bat any more in the game, why not a bowler like Umar Gul can also be out of the game by bowling looseley....Off course, i am talking about one day and t20s ...

  • AsherCA on June 27, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    One more option to consider - do away with both runners & substitutes. Have a 12 member team of which any 11 can take the field & 10 wickets would mean the end of an innings. This allows a replacement for 1 batsman / bowler / fielder who would get injured, suffer cramps OR is simply not required.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    its very good idea i dont understand why people makee negative comments , its try man i will speed up game and new inovate ideas from batsman may follow to encounter it

  • Fast_Track_Bully on June 27, 2011, 14:03 GMT

    Ridiculous rules! #) if a batsman got hit accidentally/intentionally with a fielder or by ball then thats not good #) game will end soon in fast bowling pitches with this rule #) if a team 9 down and at 40th over, then they need time to settle. #) why so hurry in the game. give 15-20 mins more to the teams to finish their innings.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:02 GMT

    @Swaminathan Krishnamoorthy Currently bowling is started with a new ball and over numbers 1, 2, 3, .... are all bolwed with the same ball (untill it is changed). Under new system the game will start with two balls, one on each end. Therefore, over numbers 1,3,5,,7 ... will be bolwed by one ball and number 2,4,6,8, will be bolwed by the second one. We did this in the past, not sure why we didn't adopt it permanentaly.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:56 GMT

    Cricket obviously is becoming disfigured beyond recognition. To just imagine a "runner" creating so much hassle. Yes he will sneak a few runs, who cares. I bet the Indians and the Bangladeshis contemplating murder at every loss will moan at this. If you guys don't win, boy you better be insured!

    And why does Strauss act the way he does? Vaughn was a better captain, he managed to rally a team against the greatest opposition of that time and give life to the greatest cricketing series that has come and gone in a considerable period of time. I wonder if Vaughn will be picking on such small gains, when he would simply resort to the greatness of his team.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:56 GMT

    2 new balls - Good news - Ball will be new for long time - Means less saliva getting used to polish the ball

  • kanishkazico on June 27, 2011, 13:50 GMT

    "New balls from both ends in ODIs" - means reverse swing and spin is completely taken out of account !! "Batting and bowling Powerplays to be taken between overs 16 and 40" - for batting teams who lost 4-5 wickets how can they go on all out attack as early as 35th over! so either they can't capitalise on batting powerplay or if they try so they would get bowled out much before 50 overs. both these decisions are not good for the game.

  • Ravi.Wadekar on June 27, 2011, 13:49 GMT

    New balls from both ends in ODIs is ridiculous. This will kill the art of reverse swing. I'm sure we are witnessing the last leg of reverse swing art in Zaheer Khan because no one would work on ball to keep one side shining from now onwards. Spinners will hate the format coz by the ball starts to grip the surface death overs would be on. Overall this decision will take the skill of working on ball away from game.

  • GB75 on June 27, 2011, 13:46 GMT

    ICC's Executive Committee Proposals: strangulate the arts of reverse swing, sppin and using the conditions. Stop practising reverse swing unless you are Wasim Akram and can start doing with with a 10th over old ball.

  • Janit on June 27, 2011, 13:41 GMT

    Re : No runners Allowed. What if a person gets injured, has to retire hurt as per new rules. The player hasn't improved from the injury over the course of the game and the team is 9 wickets down and few runs to win in the last over of the match!!! a. Will they be allowed a runner b. Will the opposite team be awarded the match

    2 New balls is going to be like having two T20 innings.

  • Main_Culprit on June 27, 2011, 13:40 GMT

    Mr. 'Runner'thunga must be very pleased this was not introduced while he was playing.. :)

  • GB75 on June 27, 2011, 13:36 GMT

    So what about reverse swing and about spinners using the softer/older ball? All this will be killed if we use 2 new balls. Why can't ball makers manufacture a ball that can be visible to all for 50 overs instead of tinkering with the rules? Might as well introduce cement wickets. These new proposals are further interfering with game strategies that teams should be allowed to determine by mandating powerplay periods and bowler skills to exploit conditions. Making ODIs interesting in the "middle overs" as a means to make cricket more interesting to those who find is too long seems to be ICC's primary motivation, of course driven by the bottom line of higher revenues. Cricinfo should ask ICC to open thier books and board meeting minutes for everyone to ensure transparent and accountable management of world cricket.

  • andrew-schulz on June 27, 2011, 13:19 GMT

    Swaminathan, the point of having a new ball at each end is so that the crowd can actually see the white ball through to the end of the innings. It is a much better option than changing the ball after 34 overs. It is good to get rid of runners also. It becomes a joke when unprincipled players like Jonathan Trott bat with a runner, then come out and bowl in the other innings.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:13 GMT

    Can we abolish the ICC? They're ruining the sport.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:13 GMT

    Personally, all the 3 changes are a bit baffling. 1) Issue of runners - I think, there were a set of circumstances where the batsman could have been awarded a runner, most of which were with the consent of the Fielding side's skipper. Needed to have been modified as opposed to being taken out completely. Rather focus on unnecessary Fielding substitutions- esp fast bowlers, thats ridiculous. 2) Usage of 2 new balls - might have an impact on reverse swing. 3)Powerplays - If this is how batting and fielding sides are using them, what is anyone's problem. Trust the captains to know when to take them. the powerplay change i thought was particularly poor. What next- only half volleys between overs 20-35, everything else is a no-ball?

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:07 GMT

    There should be a rule where 1. it would help the captain to decide the eleven after the toss so even the captain loses the toss he will be having an much situation (pitch) demanded eleven 2. Sub for 2 players so again the toss and pitch wont be a crucial factor

  • Venki_indian on June 27, 2011, 13:05 GMT

    abolition of runners ok; restricting powerplays good; but new ball from both ends is not a good decision , forget the art of reverse swing :(

  • TATTUs on June 27, 2011, 13:05 GMT

    The powerplay decision is not that right. Players should have the freedom to take that whenever they feel. But on a day like this, when the ICC has made more than one decision right, it doesnt matter I guess.

  • TATTUs on June 27, 2011, 13:03 GMT

    What has happened to the ICC. Perhaps its the day. They are making all the right moves.

  • GRAMMY_SACHIN on June 27, 2011, 13:02 GMT

    Excellent move by ICC. Cheers

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:00 GMT

    Cricket is obviously going to get disfigured beyond recognition. To imagine a runner being such a big hassle. Just let the fellow have a runner, yeah he will sneak a few runs. Who really cares. Maybe the Indians and the Bangladeshi's contemplating murder at every loss will moan at such a thing. Yeah to them every run is a matter of whether Dhoni or a Bangladeshi player loses a limb or two.

  • skyeshwin on June 27, 2011, 12:56 GMT

    Another suggestion I would like to make is to increase the number of allowable bouncers per over from 1 to 2. Also free hit should be scrapped. Proper sporting pitches should be prepared so that it doesn't favor the batsmen heavily.

  • pvwadekar on June 27, 2011, 12:56 GMT

    new balls at each end is a good idea. The idea of cricket Test or ODI is to try and have a competition between bat and ball, instead of bat and bat. The last 10 years have robbed us of this contest.Hopefully this will force the respective cricket boards to add some juice to the pitches that will really help the bowlers and Bowlers will also try and make the ball swing more. It will make the scores like 350 and above will be a distance memory.

  • Mfalme on June 27, 2011, 12:56 GMT

    @Jan; I was about to make the same point when I saw your comment - absolutely true. New balls from both ends will certainly be a disadvantage for those bowlers who rely on a worn out ball; spinners and reverse swinging fast bowlers. If the white ball loosing its colour is the issue I doubt using 2 balls is not the right solution. I also don't understand how people compare performances and rate cricketers of different eras when the playing rules and conditions are regularly modified. @ABP35; I do agree with you on the stumping and run-out. Similarly why should an overthrow go against the bowler. @drak47: agree partly with. That's right what happens if a batsman gets injured during the innings, especially early in the innings? I suppose the No Runner rule should be limited to cramps and not injuries. On the other hand when a bowler gets injured during an innings there is no remedy equivalent to a runner - Teams are not allowed to substitute with another bowler.

  • Stark62 on June 27, 2011, 12:48 GMT

    New ball from both ends?!?! o.O

    Has this decision be taken by a mere 7 yr old!

  • Finn92 on June 27, 2011, 12:45 GMT

    I'm glad that they are trying new methods, like a different ball at each end, to try and give the bowlers more of a say in ODI's as too many mediocre batsman are being made to look good by bloated averages in one-dayers and the bowlers deserve some balance.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:45 GMT

    one ball from one end and a different ball from the other end.Two new ball means one ball for one end.They will only be new at the start of the inning. It simply means at the end of the inning each ball will omly be 25 overs old

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:44 GMT

    Everything z gud..expect dat using a new ball at both ends..just what z dat..Very unfair for da spinners & also wht abt river swing bowlers..

  • Ramkumar2010 on June 27, 2011, 12:33 GMT

    Contest between teams will really spruce up - (a)Captains were safe using the powerplay option. Now with this new rule, it will obviously make the captains think proactively leading to more ODI excitement. (b) usage of two new blass at the start of the innings would mean the bowlers can nullify batting advantage, only if they are able to bowl and swing well - for sure, the new rules to ODI looks far logical....Only pro-active captains can survive!!

  • liaqathussain on June 27, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    will the bals still be changed at 34 overs?????????????

    i think its a posotive change,

  • Ruch on June 27, 2011, 12:30 GMT

    New balls from both ends *raises eyebrows" What this will do is to encourage pace bowlers and discourage use of spinner's role in a ODI... Spin is a wonderful art and is already taking a pounding from excessive t20s and ODIs being played this days where bat dominates bowl. This will reduce the spinners role even further and you may find future ODI teams with 5 pace bowlers or 4 pace and 1 part time spinner

  • venbas on June 27, 2011, 12:29 GMT

    Having runners for you is just leading to lazy bones cricketers getting away with having cake with their choice of toppings and enjoying it to the fullest. This rule will force them to shape up and haul themselves or just get out when cramped. I can still remember Saeed Anward's brutal 194 when he was merrily swinging away whilst still using a runner due to "alleged" cramps.

  • shrastogi on June 27, 2011, 12:26 GMT

    Good decision on two balls (whatever happens to reverse swing) and abolishing runners and regulating power plays. I dont agree to two bouncer rule as it could be misused while chasing towards end of innings especially if two new balls are going to be used.

  • chapathishot on June 27, 2011, 12:25 GMT

    Using two new balls will help bowlers who can reverse swing the ball as the ball will not changed after 34th over.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:25 GMT

    "New ball from each end in one-dayers" This decision is going to be introduced to help the bowlers gain some advantage but on the other side of it, this decision is definitely going to nullify the reverse swing advantage for them to a great extent...

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    Good move to ban runners, its use has been abused far too much. There willl be occassions when there are legitimate hard luck stories but hey ho - thats life, thats cricket!

  • madras_boy on June 27, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    Runner rule is OK. But the new ball rule at each end needs a rethink.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    didnt get two new balls frm each end thingy...>>> rubbish

  • chapathishot on June 27, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    If the no runners rule was there thousands of runs should have been reduced from players like Saeed Anwar . @Sir_Freddie_Flintoff.Ithink you are wrong ,yes Inzi was a bad runner but did not take advantage of Runner rule .

  • rockdworldxi on June 27, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    with this rule teams like south africa will have an advantage as they have world class fast bowlers and with each bowl getting only 25 overs old it will keep doing a bit till the 25th or 30th over specially in south african conditions under lights n more so in english conditions. They might even think about playing a full pace attack and as far as india is concerned with yuvraj, sehwag ane raina thr to bowl some spin india will mostly have to play 3-1 pace attack as the bowl wont get much scuffed up n the 2nd spinner wont be too useful. we will have to wait n see wat effect does it have. the harder bowl mite come well on the bat in sub continental conditions while it might be difficult to negotiate for the batsmen in foreign conditions

  • chaithan on June 27, 2011, 12:21 GMT

    instead of suspending the captain, why not give on-field punishment for slow over rates? For every minute behind, the batting team gets 2-5 runs (depending on the pitch and the reasons for the slowness). but if its their fault, let runs be deducted or the bowling team be granted extra runs

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:17 GMT

    new ball from both end! and also power-play of 10 overs between 16th to 40th over. when the spinners will bowl?? i mean its not even things up its gonna get more in favor of batsman. especially in the subcontinent bcoz the new ball doesn't swing much here. instead it comes on to the bat nicely. if the spiners not going to bowl more than 10-12 overs in india i think i think we r going to see 350-400 score preety often.

  • SudharsanVM on June 27, 2011, 12:16 GMT

    Two balls at either end is a ridiculous. the art of reverse swing will be lost. There won't be great spinners in the future. May be they are trying to make a good contest between bat and ball, but some of the bowlers skill will be lost and this is a bad move. What BCCI doing in this regard? And approach with runners is a good move. May be Ppl lik Inzi would feel bad, but it really shows that a person is injured means, he should be kept away. this will ensure only ppl 100% fit plays in all games. And cricket is boring between 15-40 overs, so its a good move to keep the pwerplay in that period. Any how batsmen going to hit after 45 overs, so whats the use in the strategy of PP in the 40s overs? And there were a supersub strategy some years back. it might be confusing a lot, but it gives a flexibility for all the teams to go with a extra bowler or a batsmen.it gives a chance for smarter captains with an extra option. such things can be brought back into consideration.

  • ssenthil on June 27, 2011, 12:12 GMT

    I love all the Changes ICC(BCCI :P) made, Way to go ICC, Now the middle overs can't be so Boring, with 10 PP overs assured and giving more to the Bowlers by giving 2 New Balls meant the swing will last 20 overs instead of 10 overs (PK must be Licking his Lips reading this).

  • i_witnessed_2011 on June 27, 2011, 12:10 GMT

    Why Batting and bowling Powerplays should be taken between overs 16 and 40? Why not between 11 and 40? Going forward, I think most team will take bowl. PP between 16 to 20. What is the point in keeping 11-15 ov without PP? Set bastmen will loose the rhythm(Especially attacking batsmen at the top).

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:10 GMT

    Very good decision by the ICC to do away with allowing runners which always gives a distinct advantage to the batsman concerned and the batting side. To @ Gizza... I agree with what you state in the final three lines of your views, but I do not agree with your idea of allowing the batsman to retire "temporarily" (due to cramps) and return to bat when he is fit. Masroor Qasim's observation is spot on, in this regard.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:09 GMT

    @Sir_Freddie_Flintoff: Inzi did used runner when injured and he preffered taking singles rather doubles as he was good enough to hit the ball out of park :D

  • apoorvkumark on June 27, 2011, 12:09 GMT

    Doing away with the runners is a wonderful decision. Would show the actual potential of players in testing conditions. Powerplays regulation only means the traditional slog over cricket goes away which in high quality games was the real test for the players. Although the two new ball system would only cause more confusion to the game with the ball getting softer and older even late and making it difficult for spinners to take advantage of the ball condition. Bowling for swing bowlers on fast pitches and overcast conditions would make the contest even more low scoring and less to attract crowds and television watchers for revenues.

  • ragpars on June 27, 2011, 12:06 GMT

    Abolition of runners: Good decision in test matches, in case batsman retire hurt he can take some rest and come back. But it is not the case in ODIs. It is better to abolish the rule "Abolition of runners" atleast ODIs, and it should be still the mutual understating of captains. As mentioned above by someone, if some player taking advantage out of it, its upto team the captain's decision.

    New balls at each end: It is ridiculous in ODIs…not a good decision at all.

    Batting and bowling Powerplays only between the 16th and 40th over is really a good decision and real ODI cricket comes out of it.

  • vimalkm on June 27, 2011, 12:02 GMT

    Out of the 18 comments so far one only BY JAN seems to have nailed the point in its head!! what about all the tricks a bowler can do with the old ball??? Zaheer Khan bowls well with old ball far better than new....Pak players have struggled all there life to perfect reverse swing what happens now?? and pooooor spinners now have to bowl with a newish ball? ICC-why not bring a rule saying a team cannot have any bowlers all 11 should be batsman!!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    The idea of two new ball would speed up the process of putting the of declining quality slow bowling, and in turn make the batsmen much more comfortable because the ball comes on well for a longer period of gameplay . Most but all of the recent modifications in the limited overs cricket has been favoring the batsmen. But that makes the game much more interesting to watch for the spectators but life becomes tougher for the spinners. But the ICC doesn't do much these days to make the 5-day format more interesting to watch.

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:57 GMT

    Bad to remove runners.....as no subs are there in cricket new ball from both ends .....pretty good 4 fielders outside the circle in non powerplay phase....ridiculous ban captain after slow overrate in 2 matches.....not ideal

    I think best decision is to change the current ICC and BCCI and everything will be aryte :D

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:54 GMT

    Yes,runners are against the spirit of a sport.Cricket is a sport of runs,you can't run,you don't play!

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:52 GMT

    I tried to comprehend more than once but dont understand new ball in both ends.

  • pratit on June 27, 2011, 11:48 GMT

    Except the new ball from both ends other recommendations were predictable.we will have to see the bowlers' reactions before deciding whether it is positive or not.however,if i were a bowler i would not be amused at this decision

  • Gizza on June 27, 2011, 11:47 GMT

    Great move to ban runners. It was becoming increasingly ridiculous. If a batsman has cramps, he should retire hurt and can come back later if he improves. Remember runners are ONLY used for leg injuries and cramps anyway. Currently (actually always) if a batsman is hurt on the arm, chest, head, etc. he has to retire hurt. Because a runner can't help you swing a bat. And in any case, yes there are fast bowlers and batsmen who take lots of singles but overall cricket doesn't require the same levels of fitness compared to most sports. It is not much of an ask for the batsman to ensure he doesn't get cramps during his innings. Exercise, do your stretches and you'll be fine. If it is a very hot day, the umpires can allow more drinks. No need for runners. Never was there a need. Also the leniency on runners has helped batting sides lately so this is a win for the bowlers. There is no equivalent for runners in bowlers is there?

  • cecil_bingo on June 27, 2011, 11:35 GMT

    its rubbish using 2 new balls that really will affect the game a lot especially in conditions like south africa, australia and new zealand

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:32 GMT

    Now some bowlers can blame the ball they used for not being able to take wickets while other bowlers did from the opposite end...

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:30 GMT

    The usage of two new balls from each end will nullify the batting advantage seen in the last 5 years or so. Matches will become more evenly contested now, with the real class players coming to the fore and eliminating lesser talented bashers.

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:30 GMT

    "New ball from each end in one-dayers" - Some bowlers can now say that the ball they were using is to blame for not being able to take wickets while other bowlers do! LAME...

  • drak47 on June 27, 2011, 11:28 GMT

    Good idea the new balls from both ends plan. The no runners thing though is ridiculous because in cricket, unlike football or rugby, u can't substitute players so if someone gets injured, their game is well and truly over. Where is the common sense in that? Maybe teams should be able to sub players..

  • AJ_Tiger86 on June 27, 2011, 11:26 GMT

    Inzamam ul Haq used to take advantage of the runner rule way too much. I wish this rule was introduced 15 years ago.

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:26 GMT

    Desparation to save ODIs is killing the fun...two balls from both ends...can some one explain the use of it?

  • Taz786 on June 27, 2011, 11:24 GMT

    Very good news on using a new ball from each end. Make the contest between bat and ball more even, about 19 Years later than what they did in the 1992 World Cup, but as they say, better late than never !

  • 512fm on June 27, 2011, 11:22 GMT

    good decision with the runners it was getting ridiculous with guys like ryder using a runner pretty much every innings he got to 40 odd, i mean batsman have it easy enough already runners should have been banned from day one

  • ABP235 on June 27, 2011, 11:18 GMT

    I am pleased that some of the recommendations I had sent to ICC n MCC - especially about the new ball at both ends rule. This was used in Australia for sometime during mid 80s and dropped for no logical reason. Now, a ball will be used at each end, can only be 25 overs old when the innings finishes, which is a great thing. Muddy ball in Indian conditions will be avoided. Abolition of runners is also good - if the batsman is not fit to run, let him not bat at all. There are couple of other things to be addressed - one, a stumping wicket off a wide ball is credited to the bowler! This is the most ridiculous rule, credit off an invalid delivery! only the keeper should get credit. secondly, in third umpire ruling runouts, often we see due to the curvy backside of the bat, often a bat that is inside the crease appears to be above ground and batsmen are given out. This should change. once landed on ground, if the bat is inside the crease but toe end is above ground, it should be ruled IN.

  • Jan on June 27, 2011, 11:16 GMT

    New balls from both ends is the worst decision I will say if approved. I would like to maintain a BCCI like stand in this :) Spinners..prepare to sacrifice more and pacers...forget reverse swing.

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:12 GMT

    yes it is nice to abolish the runners in cricket as it gives some unfair advantage to the batting side

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    Thank God Arjuna Ranatunga has retired.... Otherwise, He could not have scored 1000 ODI runs !!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:05 GMT

    and nthing 4 d bowlers...atleast allow them to ball 2 bouncers in an over in odi !!!!

  • spiritwithin on June 27, 2011, 11:02 GMT

    abolishing the runner?which means if the batsman is injured or cramped he is retired out or he can come back later??the first thing about runner which comes to my mind is that saeed anwar scored 70% of his runs using a runner,maybe a good thing to discard runners as it gives undue advantage to a batsman

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:55 GMT

    bad...............................decision................

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:50 GMT

    why would you abolish runners?!? :O

  • drtrinileggie on June 27, 2011, 10:47 GMT

    Sorry runners should be continued for VALID REASONS.

    INJURIES WHICH OCCURED DURING THE MATCH.

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:46 GMT

    wht d hell!!!!! dey cant ban runners

  • khurramsch on June 27, 2011, 10:46 GMT

    intersting changes. specialy new ball at both ends

  • mightymf2000 on June 27, 2011, 10:39 GMT

    VERY VERY VERY intersting chocie. Some how I don't think it's the right choice but now use complainging about it.

  • Dale-force_winds_steyn_the_pitch on June 27, 2011, 10:36 GMT

    Abolition of runners = bad. New ball from each end needs more explanation. Restricting powerplays will be interesting- could help stop the lull that is the middle overs. All in all, some very drastic decisions indeed.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Dale-force_winds_steyn_the_pitch on June 27, 2011, 10:36 GMT

    Abolition of runners = bad. New ball from each end needs more explanation. Restricting powerplays will be interesting- could help stop the lull that is the middle overs. All in all, some very drastic decisions indeed.

  • mightymf2000 on June 27, 2011, 10:39 GMT

    VERY VERY VERY intersting chocie. Some how I don't think it's the right choice but now use complainging about it.

  • khurramsch on June 27, 2011, 10:46 GMT

    intersting changes. specialy new ball at both ends

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:46 GMT

    wht d hell!!!!! dey cant ban runners

  • drtrinileggie on June 27, 2011, 10:47 GMT

    Sorry runners should be continued for VALID REASONS.

    INJURIES WHICH OCCURED DURING THE MATCH.

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:50 GMT

    why would you abolish runners?!? :O

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:55 GMT

    bad...............................decision................

  • spiritwithin on June 27, 2011, 11:02 GMT

    abolishing the runner?which means if the batsman is injured or cramped he is retired out or he can come back later??the first thing about runner which comes to my mind is that saeed anwar scored 70% of his runs using a runner,maybe a good thing to discard runners as it gives undue advantage to a batsman

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:05 GMT

    and nthing 4 d bowlers...atleast allow them to ball 2 bouncers in an over in odi !!!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    Thank God Arjuna Ranatunga has retired.... Otherwise, He could not have scored 1000 ODI runs !!!