Cricket regulations that could do with a tweak

Permit two run-outs off the same delivery

Take a leaf out of baseball and give fielders a chance to aim for a higher level of achievement

Saad Shafqat

March 22, 2013

Comments: 49 | Text size: A | A

Gautam Gambhir and Yuvraj Singh are involved in a mix-up, India v Australia, 2nd quarter-final, Ahmedabad, World Cup 2011, March 24, 2011
A double play will increase the drama that already surrounds any run-out © Associated Press
Enlarge

A run-out is the most gut-wrenching of dismissals. It takes place in a segment of play that is removed from the central conflict between bat and ball, creating situations in which you often get executed for no fault of your own. Like any needless death, a run-out is surrounded by an explosive mix of circumstances that are fertile territory for drama, pathos, even farce.

If the intent of sport is to entertain and dramatise, what better way to achieve those aims than to take your most incendiary plotline and turn it up a notch? One run-out is tragic enough. Now imagine two run-out dismissals at the same time.

Here's a typical scenario: Batsman A fails to make his ground and gets run out from an outfielder's smart throw to the wicketkeeper. Batsman B, meanwhile, is also out of his ground (for any number of reasons - ball-watching, mishearing, miscalculating, or just having a plain old brain freeze). The wicketkeeper fires a throw to the bowler, who happens to be well positioned over the stumps and clips the bails to run batsman B out as well.

At the moment this can't happen in cricket because the laws don't allow it. But there is precedent in baseball, where the rules permit something called a double play, in which two batters get dismissed within the same continuous playing action if they are both off base.

It won't take much of a tweak in the laws to recreate this in cricket. All you need is to stipulate that after a run-out the ball isn't dead until the remaining batsman has also made his ground. If he doesn't, he too can be run out. That would result in two stomach-turning dismissals, effectively off the same delivery - the equivalent of a vicious stabbing, followed by a twisting of the knife. As a spectacle, you really couldn't ask for more.

The amendment required will be to Law 23 (dead ball). As presently configured, one of the conditions for the ball becoming dead is if a batsman gets dismissed. This could be rewritten to state that the ball is dead after a batsman is dismissed, except in case of a run-out, when it is not dead until after the remaining batsman has made his ground. If he fails to make his ground, permissible modes of dismissal (most obviously a run-out, but theoretically also obstructing the field) will apply.

This kind of a double-play run-out isn't really as radical as you might think. As a passage of play, it isn't much different from two dismissals off consecutive deliveries, which happens all the time. It even reinforces the basic intent of the run-out law (Law 38), which is to emphasise peril whenever the batsman is out of his ground.

Cricket's version of a double play could even end up being a terrific boost to the art of fielding, because fielders would have a new height of achievement to aim for. The number of double plays executed could become a cherished stat, as coveted by fielders as centuries are by batsmen and five-fors by bowlers. Fielding is the most overlooked part of the game; this could be just thing it needs.

Saad Shafqat is a writer based in Karachi

RSS Feeds: Saad Shafqat

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by hiDhaval on (March 25, 2013, 10:30 GMT)

Why a No-ball for height also declared as 1-bouncer ? this is biased against the bowler. And fundamentally - A legitimate bouncer is the delivery that goes between the shoulder and top of the head. While No-ball is the one that goes over the head ! .. so theoretically too bouncer and No-ball cannot be at the same time!. I wonder why this rule has been overlooked / mis-used so far against the bowler.

Posted by   on (March 24, 2013, 0:10 GMT)

Disagree. This would give a free licence to fielders to take a shy at the stumps all the time. The present rule makes them think about the value of the throw,. This is a great judge of how a fielder handles pressure and no way that the rule needs changing.

Posted by Frankspeaker-USA on (March 23, 2013, 19:44 GMT)

Sorry, a bad idea... we hardly have 5-6 batsmen in a team... if a team batting first or chasing a score.... has lost early quick 3-4 wickets and recovering from the early debacle ... players play in pressure there is as a high possibility of a run-out....imagine if there is a mix up while taking a run or both collided and if if both are out of the crease...n both get out (with what u suggested) then they are bowlers left to bat and there remains no balance of competition... it becomes a one sided phenomena.. it only sounds interesting if implied loss to game of cricket :)

Posted by ColJJ on (March 23, 2013, 14:53 GMT)

I am not entirely conviced with the idea that " Ball is not dead after one batter gets run out and other has not grounded his crease. As one end has been lost already, in this case, can the other alone run and earn a score? (i-e ball hits stumps and a batter is has been ran out, whereas ball is deflected with stumps). Of course not. then how can we declare that ball is not dead and a the other end batter can also be ran out?

Posted by Dirk_L on (March 23, 2013, 7:52 GMT)

A good idea for the IPL, Big Bash etc, but please keep it out of serious cricket.

Posted by IKISM on (March 23, 2013, 6:42 GMT)

You cannot hang a guy twice for one crime....so lets stick with the law as it is because it sounds pathetic and definitely not in the spirit of the game.

Posted by manav599 on (March 23, 2013, 4:55 GMT)

This is the most dissapointing article on this website. In baseball, the ball isnt dead, so the player running does get the run if he completes it. In cricket, no run can be added after a wicket falls, so there is no point in punishing a batsman for nothing at all.

Posted by I-Like-Cricket on (March 23, 2013, 1:29 GMT)

I honestly thought you could do this. We used to "double run-out" batsmen at school all the time.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Saad ShafqatClose

    'A test of Kohli's mental strength'

Bowl at Boycs: Geoffrey Boycott on Kohli's recent form, and Cook's captaincy

    Kallis: a standard-bearer for a nation

Mark Nicholas: He made South Africans proud and he made the rest of the world stand up and take notice

    'Like a ballet dancer'

My XI: Martin Crowe on Mark Waugh's lazy elegance and batsmanship that was easy on eye

    Sea, sun, scandal

Diary: Our correspondent takes in the sights and sounds of Galle and Colombo, and reports on a tampering controversy

Remembering Ashok Mankad

V Ramnarayan: The late 'Kaka' was a terrific batsman, a shrewd captain, and a wonderful raconteur. But most of all he was a genuine friend

News | Features Last 7 days

Bhuvneshwar on course for super series

Only 15 times in Test history has a player achieved the double of 300 runs and 20 wickets in a Test series. Going on current form, Bhuvneshwar could well be the 16th

Vijay rediscovers the old Monk

The leave outside off stump has been critical to M Vijay's success since his India comeback last year. Contrary to popular opinion, such patience and self-denial comes naturally to him

Ugly runs but still they swoon

Alastair Cook did not bat like a leading man but the crowd applauded him for simply not failing

Time to pension off the seniors?

If England are going to win nothing, history suggests it might be worth their while to win nothing with kids

Boycott floored by an Indian trundler

When Eknath Solkar got under the skin of Geoff Boycott, leading to a three-year self-imposed exile from Test cricket

News | Features Last 7 days
Sponsored Links

Why not you? Read and learn how!