October 11, 2011

'They're complicating the laws, not simplifying them'

The ICC's revision of the rules to do with Powerplays, new balls in ODIs, runners, and obstruction of the field take effect from today. Former and current players weigh in on the changes
  shares 35

Using Powerplays between overs 16 and 40

Alastair Cook, England one-day captain It's certainly very interesting and it will change the tactics in those last 10 overs. It can be a bit of nightmare when the Powerplay is taken in the 45th over - you can feel a bit helpless. It will certainly change things now that they have to be taken before the 40th over.

Ian Chappell, former Australia captain and current commentator I don't think there's enough foresight with the framing of all the laws. You need to think of the laws occasionally, but we are having major changes all the time, which means you haven't thought through the rules properly at first. If I am a captain, this rule makes me feel, "Why don't you come out and lead the side instead of me, because you are telling me what I need to do all the time - when to take the fielders, where to place my fielders." This Powerplay legislation distracts from allowing the captain to lead the side.

Michael Kasprowicz, former Australia fast bowler and now a Cricket Australia board member The Powerplays have worked really well for bowlers. There seems to be a lot more impact from bowlers, and I think that's good for the game. Enforcing their use between the 16th and 40th overs increases the need to think about it in a tactical sense rather than just leaving the batting Powerplay, in particular, for the final few overs.

Andrew Hudson, former South Africa batsman and currently South Africa's convenor of selectors A lot of teams would just wait until the end of the 45th over to take the Powerplay, because then they would have no choice, but now it will make them commit to a game plan. It will probably create a bit more interest.

Sanjay Manjrekar, former India batsman and current commentator Again, we can see some of the problems 50-over cricket has been having and this is an attempt to infuse some excitement into the middle stages. I'm not overly excited by it. It's another little tweak. It'll just shake captains a bit out of their comfort zone because they had been doing it the standard way [last five and after the mandatory first 10]. Very few captains actually used [Powerplays] to their advantage.

Ian Bishop, former West Indies bowler and current commentator I think teams will eventually find a way to create some sort of equilibrium. I hope this ruling will create some more interest in middle overs. I have no empirical evidence to back this, but generally bowling teams take their Powerplay straight after 10 overs. Forcing them to take it in 16-40 will give the spectators something to watch, if sixes and fours are your kind of thing.

I don't think forcing batting sides to take it before the 40th over is a bad thing, or that it might end up being a double-edged sword. I have no sympathy for batsmen, not because I don't like them, but they generally hold the advantage in limited-overs cricket. A lot of batting sides have lost their way in the Powerplay overs, but the problem was that their approach to the restrictions wasn't clear; I don't think when it is being taken is as much an issue as how it is approached. If you are reckless in the Powerplay, which was often the case in the World Cup, it can be a problem, but I think batsmen are going to get smart enough in time to learn how to handle it.

New balls from either end

Ravi Rampaul, West Indies fast bowler Playing with two new balls keeps the ball a lot newer, so from where I stand it is probably a good thing for the bowlers but not the batters. The two new balls might rule out reverse-swing later in the innings, but you will have a harder ball to bowl with later on in the innings.

Bishop This rule will suit different people in different conditions. In the subcontinent, where you have dry and flat grounds, it is going to favour the batsmen, but in England, Australia and New Zealand it will help the bowling side, since the balls will seam and swing through the course of the innings. The disadvantage that will come into play will be that bowlers will struggle to achieve legitimate reverse-swing in most conditions, and that disappoints me. This rule seems to have come about to do away with the practice of changing the ball midway through the innings due to discoloration, and we might in the process lose out on one or two aspects, like reverse-swing.

Kasprowicz I never thought the compulsory change of ball was a good thing. If the ball is worn and batsmen can't see it, then fair enough. But to go to a ball at each end is a good move, and is one of the few changes we've seen over the years that is going to help the bowlers, fast bowlers in particular. We didn't really see much reverse-swing in recent times anyway, because of the change of ball, so I think we will see more of that, as teams can work on the ball.

"If I am a captain, this rule makes me feel, 'Why don't you come out and lead the side instead of me, because you are telling me what I need to do all the time - when to take the fielders, where to place my fielders'"
Ian Chappell

Chappell Australia tried the new balls from both sides and gave it up 10 years back. So where has it come from again? For god's sake, get the white ball fixed so that it retains its colour and character, instead of tinkering with everything else. This rule is surely going to favour bowlers more in certain conditions. And that affects the balance between bat and ball, which is a bad thing.

Chris Woakes, England fast bowler The new rule looks good. The ball keeps shape a lot longer, and with the ball not changed towards the end, you have a good feel of it through the innings. The ball did start to reverse towards the end, and that, I think, would happen here because of the outfield.

Manjrekar I have absolutely no issue with two new balls. The mandatory change after 34 overs exposed what happens with the ball. It just didn't look good that you had to change the ball because you didn't have the quality of balls that could last the distance. A lot of modern-day spinners are able to use the hard seam of the cricket ball to work to their advantage. R Ashwin recently made a statement that he found spinning the ball easier with the hard seam because he was able to grip it better and it was responding well off the pitch. So the old-school [belief] that the ball has to be old for the spinners doesn't necessarily hold true now. Also, I saw Umar Gul get reverse-swing as early as the ninth over in England during the World Twenty20. If you're good enough, reverse-swing can still be part of a 50-over innings despite the two new balls.

In livelier conditions, the effect of the new ball and seamers will put pressure on batsmen for longer, but if you look at world cricket generally, we have placid pitches. It'll work in favour of the batsmen a bit because they'll constantly have the hard ball to smash around. We won't see the stage of 25 to 34 overs where the ball was at its softest.

Hudson It was not ideal to be changing the ball at 34 overs, so it takes out that variable. It could have an impact on reverse-swing, but at least discolouring won't be a problem, particularly for night games. It will also give the bowlers a slight advantage, which is a good thing since it has been a batter's game for so long.

Murali Kartik, former India left-arm spinner Earlier there was a chance for spinners that the old ball wouldn't go off of the bat. Now with two new balls they will remain fresh a longer time. Yes, at the same time spinners can grip the ball better, but I am sure even this rule is only for batsmen.

Obstructing the field

Bishop I think this ruling is absolutely correct. Changing direction and getting between the stumps and the throw has become an acceptable practice. I think that is wrong and is tantamount to cheating. It is the nature of the game that if you run, you are taking a risk. Your challenge is to back that judgement by reaching the other end. If your judgement is poor, you face the consequences. And doing anything to preserve your wicket is cheating. So I think if batsmen change direction to impede the fielding team, they should be penalised.

Chappell This one is plain ridiculous. Batsmen have been allowed to come in between the throw and the stumps right from the time I started playing, which is bloody long ago. Fielders are going to now throw the ball at the batsman needlessly, purely in the hope of getting a wicket. Even if he doesn't get the wicket, it is going to go up to the third umpire and take another decision away from the on-field umpires. The rule needlessly tries to legislate for a one-in-a-million chance. It is even more ludicrous since there is already enough in the law to allow the umpires to legislate that rare case. This is going to create controversies that are totally unnecessary. It is just another example of the stupidity in the law-making. The best example for the ridiculous law-making is the Mankad law. The man who changed that rule needs to be lined up against the wall and shot. The administrators need to rewrite the laws to simplify them as much as possible and not complicate them even more. I'm afraid that's what they are doing right now - complicating things too often.

Kasprowicz I'm not sure how they're actually going to dictate that or determine what the line is [for the batsman running between the wickets]. Trigonometry might come into it as to point A and point B. I can't recall too many instances when it was a major issue, but it must have taken place often enough in an international match for it to be one.

Manjrekar I think it's fair. You have a law that says you can't deliberately obstruct a fielder who's trying to take a catch unless you have a right to be in that area at the time. Some of this escaped all these years, that a batsman, while running, could change his direction deliberately to get in the path of the ball. There was a slight amount of gamesmanship and cheating involved. But it's another thing that the umpire will have to watch out for, another nuance in the game that will have to be monitored now - to determine if the change in direction was deliberate.

No runners

The MCC MCC feels that not to allow a runner for an incapacitated batsman does not comply with the spirit of equity within the Laws. If a bowler is incapacitated, another bowler can take over; if an incapacitated batsman is not permitted a runner, this effectively means the loss of his wicket, which is a disproportionate effect.

Hudson In terms of injuries, there was always a bit of a dilemma with guys who got cramps, especially in the subcontinent. Sometimes the idea of a runner could have been abused and misused. Outlawing runners may be a bit harsh on genuine cases, where there is an injury, and with so much cricket being played, genuine cases may suffer, but overall it will prevent any abuse the system was taking.

Kasprowicz I think the abolition of runners is a tremendous rule change, because for a team, if a bowler gets injured you weren't able to replace a bowler, and in some circumstances that could be damaging to the team's performance. Whereas with a batsman, he always got the luxury of someone else to do the running for him. So I think that's a good one, and unfortunately if you do suffer an injury, somehow you just have to manage it and get through it. It has seemed like it was a bit too easy at times for some batsmen, and as a former fast bowler I certainly applaud it.

Interviews by Nitin Sundar, Daniel Brettig, Firdose Moonda, Siddarth Ravindran, Siddhartha Talya

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Fast_Track_Bully on | October 13, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    No runner rule is ridiculous...what if the opposition team decided to hit/throw ball at a batsmen intentionally to injure him?? the batting team will lost a wicket and the other team may escape with the ' benefit of the doubt' rule!!!

  • POSTED BY mohsin9975 on | October 12, 2011, 23:56 GMT

    Old fox chappel is still very insightful. Liked his comments nd wondering why he nd manjrekar do nt contribute much to the formulation nd changes in cricketing laws

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | October 12, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    @Romanticstud, and who would you determine if a ball is going to hit the stumps? Hawkeye views of this would not be liked by the BCCI. In regard to obstructing the ball coming in, what will happen is that the fielders will start to aim at the batsmen hoping to hit them when they are running, on the off chance they are given out obstructing the field. The other alterntive is that the batsman runs diagonally across the wicket and gets warned for running in the danger zone.

  • POSTED BY NALINWIJ on | October 12, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    I feel that any of these new laws should be experimented at a list A[first class] level before implementing at an international level and evaluating it"s impact. If the law is silly or insignificant these laws can be discarded

  • POSTED BY Romanticstud on | October 12, 2011, 9:30 GMT

    Firstly Powerplays were brought in to help increase the excitement in the 50 over game ... taking powerplays should be changed slightly from that where the bowling powerplay should be taken after the 20th over ... Most captains just get it out of the way ... the batting powerplay should be completed by the 40th over ... that is brilliant ... Secondly the ball issue is a brilliant one ... Thirdly batsmen should be able to make their ground without blocking the path of the ball ... The rule should be always referred to the TMO ... If the ball would have hit the stumps ... it should be out if the batsman has not made his ground ... Fourthly the runner issue would be good for the game as people often took advantage of the situation ... A runner is no option ... but then I would suggest that the 12th man would be able to do full duty ... if there is a serious injury (where the batsman/bowler cannot continue his duty and will not be able to resume at any point) ... not in the case of cramps.

  • POSTED BY TRAM on | October 12, 2011, 2:12 GMT

    Simple rules make complex intelligent behavior. Complex rules make simple stupid behavior.

  • POSTED BY camstevenson92 on | October 12, 2011, 1:11 GMT

    @vraja00 test cricket is the purest form of the game. limiting the amount of overs bowled takes away what test cricket is and turns it into a limited overs game. test cricket is about longevity and mental ability more so than skill and that is why players like alistair cook, steve waugh, allan border etc are/were such good players. without the most skill, but grit and determinationgave them an edge over other players with flair and natural talent. mark waugh is the ovbious comparison to his brother in that he was highly skilled but never had the grit to play test cricket for a long time like his brother. Test cricket should remain as it is, no night matches, no DRS, no coloured clothing and no limit on overs, it is not one day cricket. Test cricket is for real cricketers.

  • POSTED BY notvery on | October 12, 2011, 0:45 GMT

    @RandyOz. umm you forgot to thank SA and India for keeping the No1 position warm for the Aussies as well as the pommies. i guess you will just have to wait your turn again until NZ, WI, SL, Zim, Pak, Bang, Ire(when they are let in) to keep it warm too before Aus gets it back.

  • POSTED BY vraja00 on | October 11, 2011, 17:31 GMT

    Why is it that they always tinker with ODI rules to make it more interesting? Why not tests? For e.g. limit the total number of overs per side in tests. Assures a result that way. Somehow, test cricket is thought to be so pure that it cannot be touched. I would like that attitude to change.

  • POSTED BY yorkerguru on | October 11, 2011, 16:56 GMT

    Come on guys cricket is a game! play it as a game... maintain a balance between bat and ball??? I dunno what this technical commitee is doing... this benefit dhoni's 3 pacers one sppinner team!!

    New ball's will not kill Spinners... it'll kill the art of spin... Obstruction.. yes sometime it is done voluntarily then it is a talent show guys!!! cocky isn't it... bowler or me.. why should it be stopped??? entertainment goes away...

    POWERPLAY - This is not 20:20.. this is 50 overs ODI's... we don't want 500 runs to be bludgened by the batters.. but grafted by them... middle over batting by Dravid and Yousuf Youhana (now mohammed yousuf) we'll miss it guys.. teams will fill in middle order with YUSUF PATHAN's... there won't be anymore dravid's or ganguly's or azharuddin's or stve waugh's to graft in the middle overs...

    It is going to be hitting cricket always... 50 death overs.. the finish will be tight but slow.. :(

  • POSTED BY Fast_Track_Bully on | October 13, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    No runner rule is ridiculous...what if the opposition team decided to hit/throw ball at a batsmen intentionally to injure him?? the batting team will lost a wicket and the other team may escape with the ' benefit of the doubt' rule!!!

  • POSTED BY mohsin9975 on | October 12, 2011, 23:56 GMT

    Old fox chappel is still very insightful. Liked his comments nd wondering why he nd manjrekar do nt contribute much to the formulation nd changes in cricketing laws

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | October 12, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    @Romanticstud, and who would you determine if a ball is going to hit the stumps? Hawkeye views of this would not be liked by the BCCI. In regard to obstructing the ball coming in, what will happen is that the fielders will start to aim at the batsmen hoping to hit them when they are running, on the off chance they are given out obstructing the field. The other alterntive is that the batsman runs diagonally across the wicket and gets warned for running in the danger zone.

  • POSTED BY NALINWIJ on | October 12, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    I feel that any of these new laws should be experimented at a list A[first class] level before implementing at an international level and evaluating it"s impact. If the law is silly or insignificant these laws can be discarded

  • POSTED BY Romanticstud on | October 12, 2011, 9:30 GMT

    Firstly Powerplays were brought in to help increase the excitement in the 50 over game ... taking powerplays should be changed slightly from that where the bowling powerplay should be taken after the 20th over ... Most captains just get it out of the way ... the batting powerplay should be completed by the 40th over ... that is brilliant ... Secondly the ball issue is a brilliant one ... Thirdly batsmen should be able to make their ground without blocking the path of the ball ... The rule should be always referred to the TMO ... If the ball would have hit the stumps ... it should be out if the batsman has not made his ground ... Fourthly the runner issue would be good for the game as people often took advantage of the situation ... A runner is no option ... but then I would suggest that the 12th man would be able to do full duty ... if there is a serious injury (where the batsman/bowler cannot continue his duty and will not be able to resume at any point) ... not in the case of cramps.

  • POSTED BY TRAM on | October 12, 2011, 2:12 GMT

    Simple rules make complex intelligent behavior. Complex rules make simple stupid behavior.

  • POSTED BY camstevenson92 on | October 12, 2011, 1:11 GMT

    @vraja00 test cricket is the purest form of the game. limiting the amount of overs bowled takes away what test cricket is and turns it into a limited overs game. test cricket is about longevity and mental ability more so than skill and that is why players like alistair cook, steve waugh, allan border etc are/were such good players. without the most skill, but grit and determinationgave them an edge over other players with flair and natural talent. mark waugh is the ovbious comparison to his brother in that he was highly skilled but never had the grit to play test cricket for a long time like his brother. Test cricket should remain as it is, no night matches, no DRS, no coloured clothing and no limit on overs, it is not one day cricket. Test cricket is for real cricketers.

  • POSTED BY notvery on | October 12, 2011, 0:45 GMT

    @RandyOz. umm you forgot to thank SA and India for keeping the No1 position warm for the Aussies as well as the pommies. i guess you will just have to wait your turn again until NZ, WI, SL, Zim, Pak, Bang, Ire(when they are let in) to keep it warm too before Aus gets it back.

  • POSTED BY vraja00 on | October 11, 2011, 17:31 GMT

    Why is it that they always tinker with ODI rules to make it more interesting? Why not tests? For e.g. limit the total number of overs per side in tests. Assures a result that way. Somehow, test cricket is thought to be so pure that it cannot be touched. I would like that attitude to change.

  • POSTED BY yorkerguru on | October 11, 2011, 16:56 GMT

    Come on guys cricket is a game! play it as a game... maintain a balance between bat and ball??? I dunno what this technical commitee is doing... this benefit dhoni's 3 pacers one sppinner team!!

    New ball's will not kill Spinners... it'll kill the art of spin... Obstruction.. yes sometime it is done voluntarily then it is a talent show guys!!! cocky isn't it... bowler or me.. why should it be stopped??? entertainment goes away...

    POWERPLAY - This is not 20:20.. this is 50 overs ODI's... we don't want 500 runs to be bludgened by the batters.. but grafted by them... middle over batting by Dravid and Yousuf Youhana (now mohammed yousuf) we'll miss it guys.. teams will fill in middle order with YUSUF PATHAN's... there won't be anymore dravid's or ganguly's or azharuddin's or stve waugh's to graft in the middle overs...

    It is going to be hitting cricket always... 50 death overs.. the finish will be tight but slow.. :(

  • POSTED BY CricketPissek on | October 11, 2011, 16:50 GMT

    it's good to change the rules every so often to keep things fresh. but this is getting ridiculous! rule changes every year?! (not even mentioning the ridiculous back n forth with the ICC regarding UDRS, depending on India's mood!) can we please keep these rules for 5 years pls? i tried explaining powerplays to my dad when they first came along and then gave up with every change. cos then came the 2 players outside the ring and 3 players outside the ring, and then batting and bowling powerplays, and now over restrictions for them. MAKE UP YOUR MIND! :)

  • POSTED BY PiyushD on | October 11, 2011, 13:50 GMT

    How about having a replacement in the playing 11, say if a batsman is injured but not out then the team has the option of replacing him with the 12th man be it bowler or batsman, same with the bowling side, if a bowler or WK is injured the 12th man can bowl or keep wkts. Any takers.

  • POSTED BY allblue on | October 11, 2011, 13:48 GMT

    @ YorkshirePudding Good idea. Such injuries, known as 'impact injuries' are already officially recognised by the umpires. If a player has spent enough time off the field with a non-impact injury he cannot come in to bat above no.7, but with an impact injury he can. As I understand it, 'impact' covers things like muscle tears as well as broken bones etc. Perhaps there will have to be a (neutral!) ICC doctor present at each match!

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | October 11, 2011, 13:27 GMT

    I think a runner should only be allowed if the Batsman has an indisputable injury (eg broken bone in his foot) that occured during the game. very much like bells injury in 2010 against Bangladesh, or they should allow the 12th man to bat.

  • POSTED BY AidanFX on | October 11, 2011, 12:35 GMT

    Ian Chappell:"this is going to create controversies that are totally unnecessary." On the obstructing the field rule change. I must admit the first time I read this rule change, "good gosh this rule could open Pandora's box." I can see this rule leading to all kinds of controversies. I tend to concur with him; however I don't think the person/s who came up with this rule should be shot. The second ball change - I am indifferent to that. I see that favoring both batsman and bowlers depending on circumstance.

  • POSTED BY maddy20 on | October 11, 2011, 12:33 GMT

    Surprised to see people in favour of multiple bouncers per over and comparing them to googlies. Nex thing you know they will be asking for 4 new balls and no gloves, helmets and pads for the batsman!

  • POSTED BY AJ_Tiger86 on | October 11, 2011, 12:31 GMT

    @RandyOZ: Alastair Cook is a FAR better captain than Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke or Steve Waugh. That's why what Cook says is incredibly important to the cricketing world. And England are going to stay no. 1 in the world for the next 20 years. Australia will NEVER again reach the no. 1 spot. Australia will never win the Ashes in the next 50 years.

  • POSTED BY RightArmEverything on | October 11, 2011, 11:12 GMT

    Seriously RandyOz, people will care more about what Cook thinks than what you think, he is afterall an international cricketer. I'm an Aussie and I'm saying that. @Saurabhjoshi17, I like your points 1 and 2. Not sure about 3 though, why would you get rid of leg side leg byes? I agree with Chappeli about the Obstructing the field rule change, it's just going to complicate things when that's the last thing the game needs.

  • POSTED BY Cluedin on | October 11, 2011, 10:42 GMT

    The use of two new balls might cause the bowlers to work on one ball for reverse swing. Maybe even a spinner might open the bowling from one end to rough up the ball for reverse swing. It would be good if the fast bowlers are not limited to one bouncer per over, it is like asking a spinner to bowl only one googly per over. Anyway a bouncer over the head of an upright batsman is considered a wide, so the bowlers will be careful to use it accurately. Also it requires an effort to bowl the bouncer and that itself is a check on the fast bowler. Again, considering that the slow bouncer has become one of the newer weapons in the bowler's hand, the restriction on bouncers should be removed. Regarding the obstruction law, maybe Hawkeye will be used to judge if the throw was going to hit the stumps when ever it hits the batsman during play before the decision is given. :D

  • POSTED BY Yevghenny on | October 11, 2011, 10:38 GMT

    Bowlers should be allowed unlimited bouncers in an over. If they wanted to make ODI cricket truly exciting, let the bowlers have unlimited overs - enough of these defensive trundlers looking to keep the run rate down to 2 or 3

  • POSTED BY cricarnab on | October 11, 2011, 10:33 GMT

    It is a very good decision- to make the batting powerplay mandatory within 15th and 40th overs. One thing that should also be implemented is the ability of umpires to go ahead and signal a third umpire on decisions that they feel are not clear- LBW, catch etc. By ruling out the involvement of players, you preserve the dignity of the umpire and hold the original logic and spirit of umpiring.

  • POSTED BY allblue on | October 11, 2011, 10:00 GMT

    @landl47 I hope we don't end up with football-type substitutions because that is such a fundamental change to the game. India's situation with Zaheer is part of the calculated risk any team takes going in with four bowlers. If we had subs could a team go in with eight batsmen and sub one at innings break for a bowler? Then sub an injured bowler too? If you pick a team with five bowlers you would have to be really unlucky to end up with only three fit ones. I do agree the runners issue will be revisited though, because if a batsman genuinely cannot run it's not just him that's affected but the man at the other end too - two players become semi-incapacitated as they would only be able to score in boundaries. If they're the last pair he'll not want to walk off and voluntarily close the innings, so you could see a stalemate occurring. The old system worked unless players abused it. Is cramp an injury or just lack of fitness? How about being overweight and just unfit?

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | October 11, 2011, 9:11 GMT

    Seriously, who cares what cook thinks. The only fact you need to know is order wont't be restored in the Cricketing World until we are #1 and back to our normal spot, thanks for holding it for us England it won't be long now!

  • POSTED BY stormy16 on | October 11, 2011, 9:04 GMT

    As long as Chappel is not too upset about the changes! The changes are interesting and nothing lost in trying I guess but I do favor the idea that you cant make changes for the sake of it. The two balls for example takes away the role of the spinner which is such a big part of the game today. The runner rule can be a problem if a guy is injured legitimately during the course of the game. The power play is a 50/50 so I dont actually like the changes...like Ian Chappel.

  • POSTED BY Nerk on | October 11, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    At around the thirty over mark a tremendous siren should go up around the ground, and then there would be a ten over passage of MULTI BALL. The bowler can bowl as many balls as he can carry in his hands, and the batsmen has to try and hit as many of them for boundaries. It would make the game more interesting, though its not really cricket any more.

  • POSTED BY heat81 on | October 11, 2011, 7:30 GMT

    Some interesting changes to the laws. I'm sure they will make the ODI game abit more exciting! I don't remember Andrew Hudson being a wicket keeper for SA though, thought he was an opening batsman...

  • POSTED BY saurabhjoshi17 on | October 11, 2011, 7:21 GMT

    1. Change in powerplay rule is a good one. But, to be fair to the bowlers also, they need to give 2 bouncers during that time. 2. I also think, leg side wide rule should be changed a bit. i see wides given for slight drift down the leg side. A batsman should be good enough to play that. 3. I would recommend to stop Leg-Side Leg-Byes also.

  • POSTED BY chandau on | October 11, 2011, 7:02 GMT

    Hmm Isnt it funny that only Capple the "OLD HEAD" seems to think all these changes are nonsense! Why does the ICC come up with stupid laws that are highly weighted in favor of batsmen? The power plays between 16-40 overs is decision making just as it was between 11-45. What next? Will ICC after a few years say when the 5 over slots should be bowled? 2 ball law is aimed at nullyfying reverse swing no doubt. Also it will destroy proper spinners and create guys like Ashwin who bowl to contain. Obstruction law has already been tested in one of the tests between SL and OZ. Ponting fielded a drive off Dilshan and threw back at stumps and Dilly who was in the crease standing promptly played another block. Ponting appealed and he was serious!!! Now if he had the balls to appeal even when the batter was not running imagine what will happen when guys are looking for runs or actually running. Am curious. if an injured guy dont get a runner does it mean no sub fielder also??? WhAt StuPIDitY :)

  • POSTED BY indianzen on | October 11, 2011, 7:00 GMT

    How about 12 overs for 2 bowler but 8 overs for 2 bowler strategy ? How about 10 over gap between every power play ?

  • POSTED BY ultimatewarrior on | October 11, 2011, 6:48 GMT

    All the laws are good and will see practically how fair they are. One more thing ICC can do is the preparation of pitch, when it can ban the pitch that is dangerous for batting, then why not it bans the placid pitch that is too batsman friendly and DANGEROUS FOR BOWLERS...Different type of pitches tests the caliber of batsman and bowler but too much should not be allowed in any case.........

  • POSTED BY adith_thegod on | October 11, 2011, 6:16 GMT

    The saddest part about this article is: "Murali Kartik, FORMER India left-arm spinner". Probably the most talented yet unlucky Indian spinner now

  • POSTED BY on | October 11, 2011, 6:14 GMT

    power play anc new ball rules are fine, obstructing the field znd runner rules are ridiculous. Chappel has exhibited a better insight in most of his comments!

  • POSTED BY kas_kas on | October 11, 2011, 5:40 GMT

    all l can say is we will just have to wait and see how the players work this one out...very interesting indeed....

  • POSTED BY gimc_tas on | October 11, 2011, 4:10 GMT

    Powerplays - we all know what will happen now! The bowling side will use it from overs 16-20 and the batting side will use it from overs 36-40.

    The occasional captain might delay the bowling powerplay if a big batting partnership is in progress; or have the batting powerplay earlier with an established batting partnership. But, 90% of the time - it will be 16-20 and 36-40.

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | October 11, 2011, 3:55 GMT

    With regard to runners, I'm sure it is only going to be a short time before full substitutes are allowed. The first time a batsman is genuinely injured and can't continue because he can't have a runner, the pressure will be on. We've already seen India having to play almost an entire test with only 3 bowlers when Zaheer was injured- that's not fair. I remember when if a soccer player was injured the team had to play with 10 men. Then substitutes were allowed for injury and now substitutes are allowed for tactical reasons. The same will happen with cricket. There's really no reason not to allow a full substitute who can bat and bowl, at least for injury. Cricket is the only major sport still allowing a side to be disadvantaged because of injury.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | October 11, 2011, 3:55 GMT

    With regard to runners, I'm sure it is only going to be a short time before full substitutes are allowed. The first time a batsman is genuinely injured and can't continue because he can't have a runner, the pressure will be on. We've already seen India having to play almost an entire test with only 3 bowlers when Zaheer was injured- that's not fair. I remember when if a soccer player was injured the team had to play with 10 men. Then substitutes were allowed for injury and now substitutes are allowed for tactical reasons. The same will happen with cricket. There's really no reason not to allow a full substitute who can bat and bowl, at least for injury. Cricket is the only major sport still allowing a side to be disadvantaged because of injury.

  • POSTED BY gimc_tas on | October 11, 2011, 4:10 GMT

    Powerplays - we all know what will happen now! The bowling side will use it from overs 16-20 and the batting side will use it from overs 36-40.

    The occasional captain might delay the bowling powerplay if a big batting partnership is in progress; or have the batting powerplay earlier with an established batting partnership. But, 90% of the time - it will be 16-20 and 36-40.

  • POSTED BY kas_kas on | October 11, 2011, 5:40 GMT

    all l can say is we will just have to wait and see how the players work this one out...very interesting indeed....

  • POSTED BY on | October 11, 2011, 6:14 GMT

    power play anc new ball rules are fine, obstructing the field znd runner rules are ridiculous. Chappel has exhibited a better insight in most of his comments!

  • POSTED BY adith_thegod on | October 11, 2011, 6:16 GMT

    The saddest part about this article is: "Murali Kartik, FORMER India left-arm spinner". Probably the most talented yet unlucky Indian spinner now

  • POSTED BY ultimatewarrior on | October 11, 2011, 6:48 GMT

    All the laws are good and will see practically how fair they are. One more thing ICC can do is the preparation of pitch, when it can ban the pitch that is dangerous for batting, then why not it bans the placid pitch that is too batsman friendly and DANGEROUS FOR BOWLERS...Different type of pitches tests the caliber of batsman and bowler but too much should not be allowed in any case.........

  • POSTED BY indianzen on | October 11, 2011, 7:00 GMT

    How about 12 overs for 2 bowler but 8 overs for 2 bowler strategy ? How about 10 over gap between every power play ?

  • POSTED BY chandau on | October 11, 2011, 7:02 GMT

    Hmm Isnt it funny that only Capple the "OLD HEAD" seems to think all these changes are nonsense! Why does the ICC come up with stupid laws that are highly weighted in favor of batsmen? The power plays between 16-40 overs is decision making just as it was between 11-45. What next? Will ICC after a few years say when the 5 over slots should be bowled? 2 ball law is aimed at nullyfying reverse swing no doubt. Also it will destroy proper spinners and create guys like Ashwin who bowl to contain. Obstruction law has already been tested in one of the tests between SL and OZ. Ponting fielded a drive off Dilshan and threw back at stumps and Dilly who was in the crease standing promptly played another block. Ponting appealed and he was serious!!! Now if he had the balls to appeal even when the batter was not running imagine what will happen when guys are looking for runs or actually running. Am curious. if an injured guy dont get a runner does it mean no sub fielder also??? WhAt StuPIDitY :)

  • POSTED BY saurabhjoshi17 on | October 11, 2011, 7:21 GMT

    1. Change in powerplay rule is a good one. But, to be fair to the bowlers also, they need to give 2 bouncers during that time. 2. I also think, leg side wide rule should be changed a bit. i see wides given for slight drift down the leg side. A batsman should be good enough to play that. 3. I would recommend to stop Leg-Side Leg-Byes also.

  • POSTED BY heat81 on | October 11, 2011, 7:30 GMT

    Some interesting changes to the laws. I'm sure they will make the ODI game abit more exciting! I don't remember Andrew Hudson being a wicket keeper for SA though, thought he was an opening batsman...