| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Video & Audio | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Games | Mobile | ||||||||||||||||||||
Rules I'd Change
Feeds
Feeds
Cricket regulations that could do with a tweak
|
No runs for deflections off direct hits
If the ball ricochets off the stumps after an attempted run-out, why should it benefit the batsman?
March 16, 2013
|
|||
Cricket gets bums on the seats, it would be fair to say, because fans, in general, want to see runs being scored, and over the years the lawmakers have erred on the side of awarding extra runs. Thus the leg-bye, the overthrow, the extra for wide, and now the free hit off the no-ball. You are unlikely to ever see a batsman being penalised a run for playing a poor shot.
The idea behind the overthrow is fathomable, and even digestible. If there was no penalty, it would carry the danger of fielders taking to throwing the ball randomly and indiscreetly and slowing the game down. But I would make two changes to the law.
I'd stop awarding the runs to the batsman. Let him earn the runs that he has already run, or the ones he was in the process of running when the throw was made, but the ones that result from overthrows should simply be treated as extras, just as byes and leg-byes are.
What I consider an outrage are overthrows off direct hits. Of course, there is the possibility of a showy fielder strutting his wares with the odd unnecessary throw, or an aggressive bowler throwing down the stumps to show the batsman his place, but to reward the batting side for a genuine direct hit defies every tenet of justice. A throw that misses its mark has every chance of being cut off by a fielder backing up, but you never know where a ball might ricochet to, off the stumps.
Imagine this. Two to win off the last ball. The batsman manages to squeeze the yorker out and scampers a single; a fielder from within the circle hares in, scoops the ball up and throws the stumps down. It's a desperately close call and the replays show the batsman to be in by a fraction. But the ball has been deflected to an unguarded area, allowing the batsmen to sprint the winning second run.
Batsmen get the benefit of the doubt following the principle of justice that an innocent must never be hung. But what sense does it make to penalise an act of brilliance?
Sambit Bal is the editor of ESPNcricinfo
Feeds: Sambit Bal
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
TopE-mail
Feedback
Print
Sambit Bal
Editor Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.
Wisden Almanack: From Grace to the IPL: in its 150th edition, Wisden looks at the most seminal events in cricket
'You can't taint the whole IPL'
Bowl at Boycs: Geoff Boycott on spot-fixing, Adil Rashid's future, and yorkers in Test matches
Harsha Bhogle: The spot-fixing controversy teaches us about the pitfalls of insecurity and of the desire to keep up with the Joneses
The new Harmison? Or is it the new Caddick?
Numbers Game: Stuart Broad is destructive at his best, but at other times his bowling average is unusually high
Less cricket on TV? Hallelujah
Matt Cleary: Why Channel Nine should be applauded for not broadcasting domestic cricket in Australia
Even at the height of his success with the national side, Sreesanth was a lonely cricketer who felt hard done by
Mumbai Indians still have a better head-to-head record against Chennai Super Kings, but once again on the big occasion, they came second
Vijay slips, Ashwin does a Sahara
Plays of the day from the IPL qualifier between Chennai Super Kings and Mumbai Indians in Delhi
Spirited Sunrisers exceed expectations
Sunrisers began this tournament as one of the underdogs, but fought impressively to reach as far as the Eliminator
Another season in the bottom half
With some of their big names stumbling this season, Kings XI Punjab were rarely serious contenders for a playoff place
Spirited Sunrisers exceed expectations (85)
Sunrisers began this tournament as one of the underdogs, but fought impressively to reach as far as the Eliminator
Even at the height of his success with the national side, Sreesanth was a lonely cricketer who felt hard done by
Mumbai Indians still have a better head-to-head record against Chennai Super Kings, but once again on the big occasion, they came second
Anderson's magic not to be missed (50)
None of the other three England bowlers with 300 Test wickets - or many other of the game's finest swing merchants - could have bowled better than James Anderson at Lord's
A case of peaking too early (42)
Royal Challengers began the season in full steam, but failed to replicate their consistency away from home
Sponsored Links
ICICI Bank M2I. Register Now and Get A Gift Offer.
Safe & simple online money transfer. Apply Now!
Buy Wisden 2013 & get a FREE Playfair
Available now at Cricshop
Perfect. It is one silly rule though it was made to standardize all the over throws. Same thing with deflection off batsmen. I think it too doesn't merit 4. Because a batsman almost never - 99 out of 100 times runs for deflection off body in spirit of the game but WILL be awarded 4 runs by umpire if it travels to boundary. If batsman follows spirit, why not rules?
Personally, i would add the run out for backing up when the ball accidentally clips the fingers of the bowler. It is the most irritating mode of dismissal. I think even the bowling team feels it is plain luck to get that dismissal. Yes the non striker need to be sensible not to wander but still, these dismissals are purely luck favored and doesn't merit a wicket.
For reverse sweep and switch hit - No wides and where the ball pitched and hit the batsman will be by passed for LBWs. Just look whether it will hit stumps or not.
Totally agree with Sambit Bal in terms of those runs going in the extras column rather than being counted as part of the batsman's shot - it is empty to see a batsman get to a century via overthrows - Agree with @vladtepes and with @runout49 - One rule I would change is that batsmen be given out LBW regardless of edging the ball - you can be bowled by 'playing on' from an inside edge so if you snick one into your pad and it would hit the stumps then technically it is still Leg Before Wicket. The batsman is saved by a mistake and by padding - if umpires just measured purely on whether or not the ball would hit the stumps it would also free up a lot of wasted DRS time searching for inside edges to save batsmen and snicko-meters. This is in my opinion where the LBW law fails bowlers and snicks and edges mistakenly reward batsmen
I agree, but even worse is the case when a batsman drives a ball back down the pitch, the ball deflects accidentally (rather than deliberately) off the bowler, and the non-striker, who has been doing his job properly in backing up, is run out by a freak accident. The only argument I have heard in favour of this law is that we can't expect the umpire to determine what is accidental and what is deliberate, but in all the cases I remember it has been quite clear whether it was accidental of not - and this sort of dismissal happens too often these days.
Rules to be changed 1. Once the ball hits the stumps, it should be considered dead. 2. free-hit rule. it adds nothing to the game other than cheap thrills. 3. Duckworth-lewis method for obvious reasons. But what i would not change is 1.the normal overthrows. Imagine a fielder diving near the boundary line but the ball touches his hand and goes for 4. Technically, that can be considered an overthrow isn't it? 2. Have you ever wondered why batsmen are allowed to have a second chance to prevent the ball from hitting the stumps. When a ball gets an inside edge and then hits his pads, he is actually preventing it from hitting the stumps. Whether it is an overthrow or a conscious attempt to protect the stumps is purely judgmental.Unlike f-1 and football, there is no room for judgments in cricket which is what makes it so non-controversial.
I do not agree to this. The rule is simple, as long as the ball remains in play, the batsmen can score runs of it. Also, think of scenario where a fielder throws the ball and gets direct hit but the batsman is already in the crease. However, at the same time the batsman at the other end is half-way down the crease..so will you allow the fielders to get him out? Or the ball should be declared as not in play? I mean, this things are not as simple as it may sound..making the overthrow rule generic makes things simpler.So IMO, no change as far as this rule is concerned
Posted by Someguy on (March 17, 2013, 20:55 GMT)@r_sudip - What a bizzare comment... I am at a loss for words. Why would any team weaken their batting lineup by removing batsmen just because they are bowlers? You may as well implement a rule that says that everyone in the team has to take it in turns bowling. Why not make a rule that says everyone has to bowl no more than 5 overs at a time and can't bowl again until everyone in the team has bowled 5 overs.
Posted by Someguy on (March 17, 2013, 20:47 GMT)@Ax777 - I disagree regarding giving LBW's regardless of edges. The whole point is that you have to be able to say that the ball was going to go on and hit the stumps, if they get a faint edge, it may not deflect it much, so it will probably go on to hit the stumps. A thick edge will give enough deviation to miss the stumps. So where do you draw the line? The line has been drawn at bat hitting ball before the ball hits the pads. It is clear cut, no grey areas, just umpire mistakes. DRS mitigates the umpire mistakes to a certain extent. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
Posted byOther rules I would look to change -
1) once a batsman is seen playing a reverse-sweep OR switch-hit, he has effectively demonstrated that he is capable of treating both sides as leg / off to suit his convenience (blind spot does not apply for him). The LBW & wide rules for such batsmen therefore should treat both sides as off-sides (for the rest of that batsman's cricketing career). 2) since batsmen are legally allowed by the rules of cricket to turn from left to right / right to left to suit their own scoring & showman requirements, bowlers should also be permitted, so long as they do it from the same side of the stumps. 3) eliminate the Mankad as a means of getting a wicket, simply have a no-bat penalty for a batsman who took a premature start the next time he faces a bowler (just as a bowler is penalised for crossing his line when he bowls)- that batsman may not move his bat / feet after the release of the ball for the next ball he faces.
Posted byActually, the case scenario put forward by Mr.Bal in the last two paragraphs has happened several times for England, usually benefiting their opponents. They're the one team who would wholeheartedly accept the rule change.
Posted byGood article but I disagree. When the ball hits the stumps in the field there's an exciting second or so during which the batsmen need to decide what to do. The atmosphere is heightened just for a moment. Occasionally the batsmen get it wrong and one gets run out at the other end. Additionally, if both batsmen are at the same end and the stumps at that end are broken, you penalise the fielding side by making the ball dead. Each ball in cricket allows an opportunity for a play within a play, and we shouldn't seek to deny drama, even if it doesn't always seem fair. The odd freak occurrence now and then makes the game richer.