| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Video & Audio | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Games | Mobile | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Take a leaf out of baseball and give fielders a chance to aim for a higher level of achievement
Saad Shafqat
March 22, 2013
![]()
|
|||
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.
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
'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 pitfalls of insecurity and the desire to keep up with the Joneses
The new Harmison? Or is it the new Caddick?
Numbers Game: Stuart Broad has been destructive at his best, but at other times his bowling average is unusually high
Aakash Chopra: Apart from luck, you need to pick your team wisely, get to bat at the top, and have your captain's support
'Being an NZ fan is like being in an abusive relationship'
Beige Brigade: Taylor Swift's songs would speak to any Kiwi cricket fan right now
Even at the height of his success with the national side, Sreesanth was a lonely cricketer who felt hard done by
A talent that didn't know its own worth
Sreesanth wasn't the most likeable team-mate or opponent, but he had skill beyond doubt, which we might have seen the last of
Mumbai Indians still have a better head-to-head record against Chennai Super Kings, but once again on the big occasion, they came second
A time for anger, a time for action
Out of the shattered lives of three young men caught up in allegations of fraud, newer and stronger players must emerge
Vijay slips, Ashwin does a Sahara
Plays of the day from the IPL qualifier between Chennai Super Kings and Mumbai Indians in Delhi
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
Spirited Sunrisers exceed expectations (56)
Sunrisers began this tournament as one of the underdogs, but fought impressively to reach as far as the Eliminator
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 (41)
Royal Challengers began the season in full steam, but failed to replicate their consistency away from home
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
I think in baseball the ball continues to remain in play i.e, does not reach dead ball state after each delivery/ pitch. In cricket at the end of each delivery, when the ball is considered to be no longer in play we get to dead ball situation. Thus in cricket we always have an 'interval' between two deliveries but there is no such necessary interval in case of baseball. So double play comes naturally to baseball. You have suggested here changing the rules as to run-out situations. But then as pointed out by Ravooru Kodanda Rao there is a case for changing other dead ball situations too. Having one batsman caught & another run-out is pretty dramatic too! While we are at it, why not let the batsmen 'steal' runs as suggested by Taraka Perera? Actually cricket is not as fast paced as baseball. So cricketing rules reflect that. Having said that, making some alterations to dead ball situation to make the game more dynamic is an idea that can be tried out, perhaps, to begin with in the T20s
This is a really interesting idea. A possibility of a double play (or even a triple play!) in baseball is always exciting, and there's certainly the potential for a crossover in cricket. Teams would be very reluctant to voice their approval for a rule change that effectively allows for two wickets off one ball, however much at fault they would be.
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 byDisagree. 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.