What's new

Laws in Cricket that make no sense

saqib.rai

saqib.rai

Tape Ball Captain
Joined
Sep 6, 2023
Runs
1,027
For me personally, it's the law that states that the bails have to fall to the ground for a batsman to be bowled. Have seen many instances where the batsman has gotten another life as the bails have not fallen even though the ball has hit the wicket.

What laws in cricket need modification? Let's discuss
 
Some laws I want to see changed/introduced:

1) Umpire's call. I think it should be gone.

2) Bail shouldn't have to be dislodged for a dismissal. If the ball hits the wicket, it should be out.

3) I think they should go back to using one ball in ODI. No need for two new balls.

4) Unlimited bouncers should be allowed.
 
saqib.rai said:
For me personally, it's the law that states that the bails have to fall to the ground for a batsman to be bowled. Have seen many instances where the batsman has gotten another life as the bails have not fallen even though the ball has hit the wicket.

What laws in cricket need modification? Let's discuss
Click to expand...
na, that law makes sense. Because bails dislodged represents when the person got out. It helps in stumping and run out.

often, the ball is kissing the stump, you cant be sure whether its out or not, thus the bail part is the best way to adjust it. Whoever came up with it, was quite clever
 
sweep_shot said:
Some laws I want to see changed/introduced:

1) Umpire's call. I think it should be gone.

2) Bail shouldn't have to be dislodged for a dismissal. If the ball hits the wicket, it should be out.

3) I think they should go back to using one ball in ODI. No need for two new balls.

4) Unlimited bouncers should be allowed.
Click to expand...
if a ball edges or kisses the wicekt very slightly, bowlers would be required to appeal the umpire and umpire can give the wrong decision. When a player is being run out, the main point of being out is not when the ball or glove is touching the wicket but when the bail is dislodged.

The bail has to be dislodged, or else you cant tell whether someone is out or not. If you have played gali cricket, you would know that half of the fights that take place is because the makeshift wicket doesnt let you know whether the ball did kiss it or not.

You also cant allow unlimited bouncers. That would mean whole overs going through without any runs scored. Plus, you put the batters life at too much risk, and it becomes a very difficult job for the keeper aswell. Even in baseball, if the ball hits the batter, he gets to run freely to first base, this is to protect the batter from any hits.

Umpire's call cant be gone. Hawk eye is not 100%, its 99% accurate because it works on prediction, thus in a case where ball is just kissing the stump, hawkeye will say its ok, but still it wont be 100% sure. Umpires are part of the game, you cant eliminate the umpires all together.
 
The two new balls in ODI and T20 cricket is the main one for me. Also agree about unlimited bouncers as the game is generally too in favour of batsman.

I think umpires call is fine. Bail needing to be dislodged is fine too.
 
Ball hitting spider cam gets declared dead ball
Ball hitting piece of equipment placed by opposition team, 5 runs awarded
Players cannot take a break to pee. You can only take a break if injured or ill
 
Personally imo here the rules that should no longer exist

1) LBW umpire call, The software should just predict if the ball is hitting or not. The software is advanced enough.

2) Hit Wicket: Why is this even a thing? Why should batsmen be punished for accidentally dislodging the bails? Makes no sense, like if a batsmen hits the ball straight to center wicket, unless the bowlers gets a finger on it, it's deemed not out, but hit wicket from a batsmen shoe is out? Just count it as a dot ball, don't see why he has to be out.

3) Mankading: It should exist yes, but a batsmen should be warned once atleast. It ruins the game otherwise. Or you can simply say that a run won't be counted if the batsmen is out of crease and it will be a dot ball. Doesn't make sense to get a wicket when the bowler hasn't even bowled a ball.

4) only 15 members squad. I think flexibility should be allowed and extended to 20.
 
Also if a throw hits the stumps, it should be dead ball regardless of whether the batsman is out or not.
Completely unfair that even direct hits can cause overthrows. I think South African t20 league had adopted this law this year
 
Have to agree with the two new balls rule. This is taking reverse swing completely out of the game.
 
Leg stump wide ball rule in white ball ball needs to be relaxed.

Two Bouncer per over rule needs to be abolished.
 
leg byes, dont see why batsmen can get runs when they fail to hit the ball.
 
To me, the concept of an umpire standing there throughout the match doesn't seem logical.

Why not utilize technology for referring decisions upstairs?
 
Cricket Warrior said:
To me, the concept of an umpire standing there throughout the match doesn't seem logical.

Why not utilize technology for referring decisions upstairs?
Click to expand...

Yes. I think on-field/human umpiring should become obsolete.

Technology should be used 100%.
 
Major said:
Umpire's call cant be gone. Hawk eye is not 100%, its 99% accurate because it works on prediction, thus in a case where ball is just kissing the stump, hawkeye will say its ok, but still it wont be 100% sure. Umpires are part of the game, you cant eliminate the umpires all together.
Click to expand...
Umpires call should be not out, that rule is very annoying, coz for same thing you'll have 2 decision.. and a biased umpires can use this umpires call on his advantage..
 
1. wides in test matches should be more strict, no balls in tests should be free hits too
2. if a super over is tied, the team with the most boundries wins. Maybe they could change it to the team that lost less wicket's wins instead
3. I feel that if a ball is hit out of the stadium, it should be 12 runs. Just makes it more fun
 
Asad T said:
1. wides in test matches should be more strict, no balls in tests should be free hits too
2. if a super over is tied, the team with the most boundries wins. Maybe they could change it to the team that lost less wicket's wins instead
3. I feel that if a ball is hit out of the stadium, it should be 12 runs. Just makes it more fun
Click to expand...
In third case we won't be getting 12 runs in Australia for sure :D
 
The batsman should be allowed to run even if the umpire calls it out (the ball is dead because the umpire calls out).



I vividly remember what happened in the India England match.. a new bat comes in and on the other side Sam Curran bats brilliantly. Next ball the umpire gives lbw and the umpire himself knows that it is not out. It was to prevent Sam from getting strike.
(Here is the SCORECARD that match, things happened in 47.5th ball)
 
Need to do something for this Mankad stuff, Ravi Ashwin is collaborating with Afghan players to devise strategies for quick wicket taking during world cup. :ROFLMAO:
 
Two new balls in ODI's is still utterly ridiculous.

Today's chase by NZ against England was an absolute borefest. The result was obvious before NZ were even halfway through their innings.

I really miss the days of the reverse swinging discloured white ball. ODI chases used to be fascinating.
 
1. 2 new balls for first 20 overs then pick one of them for rest of game so you get best of both new ball advantage and some old ball advantage without having super old ball that becomes too discolored as max one ball will get used 40 overs then. Can bring back the other match ball if it's discolored.
2. Bowled for bails being lighted rather than falling
3. 3 bouncers an over allowed. Again keeps it reasonable and bring some balance in favor of bowlers.
4. Substitute for mid game injury (not existing injury)
5. Or consider having a 12th man as sub allowed anytime. But like for like.
6. No mankad but umpires can call it one short if non striker leaves crease early
7. If rain is forecast by over 80% , predetermined shortened game. Like play a 30 over game with 15 min break instead of one team batting 50 overs long lunch and then rest wash out.
 
Some of what I will say aren't really rules but eh whatever ig, here goes nothing.

1) We need indoor standiums proper dome shaped, no more rain ruining games.

2) Get rid of umpire calls, the technology should be advanced enough to figure out of its hitting or not, a probability metric shpuld just be used to say out or wickets missing.

3) get rid of mankading, it's spoil sport. If a batsmen leaves his crease too early, don't count it as a run.

4) Get rid of hit wicket, just count it as a dot ball of the batsmen accidentally hits wicket.

5) Use Led lights as wickets. Lighting the wickets should be enough. I'm tired of when bowlers hit the wickets but the bail isn't dislodged so it's not out lol.

6) Wides should be made more fair. I've seen some balls go down the legside that the batsmen could clearly hit and smash it to the 3rd leg boundary but its called a wide regardless.

7) also this part is a little biased, but can we remove the ability of accidental overthrows. In the world cup final, NZ got unlucky, the ball just flung off the bat onto the boundary. I feel that shouldn't have been counted, that isn't the result of bad fielding or overthrows.

Also the whole rule for England winning if the game was tied was stupid, if its a tie then have another super over and keep having them until one side is the winner.

These are kind of requests for the future.

1) Have intermix games to promote Woman cricket. Allow Men vs Female cricket games.

2) psl, ipl and franchise cricket should have odi games as well to promote domestic and improve local players.
 
Bring back the rule where the non-striker can be on strike if the batsmen have crossed before catch was taken. That rule was there earlier and got removed for no reason

Also have 1 ball in ODIs. This 2 balls rule should end in ODIs
 
1) both teams never bat in the same conditions. In test cricket it's often worse. Toss playing a critical role. Weather conditions in SENA countries in particular have a huge impact on the outcome of the game.
Somewhat negated by rollers(heavy) etc but we all can see how potent bowlers like Anderson can be when conditions are conducive for swing bowling and vice versa when it isn't.
Both teams never seem to bat in the same conditions in general.

2) pitches deteriorating often disadvantages the team batting last and that again seems unfair. It's not the same pitch. Conditions can't be controlled but pitch deterioration needs to be addressed to ensure both sides are playing in a neutral envrinoment
 
Why can't the match shift to pink ball of a similar condition when the light is bad?

Bad light on day 5 is very unfair to the team that has a chance to win
 
Major said:
na, that law makes sense. Because bails dislodged represents when the person got out. It helps in stumping and run out.

often, the ball is kissing the stump, you cant be sure whether its out or not, thus the bail part is the best way to adjust it. Whoever came up with it, was quite clever
Click to expand...
Why cant the ICC just get rid of the bails and have stumps that light up for a few seconds whenever they are touched?
These stumps wouldn't even be that expensive to be implemented at the domestic level as well because its just basic technology.
A lot of ex-cricketer have voiced their support to such a rule change as well
 
saqib.rai said:
Why cant the ICC just get rid of the bails and have stumps that light up for a few seconds whenever they are touched?
These stumps wouldn't even be that expensive to be implemented at the domestic level as well because its just basic technology.
A lot of ex-cricketer have voiced their support to such a rule change as well
Click to expand...
no, bails falling off tells you when the impact took place. A stump light can malfunctioned, plus the timing wont be as accurate.

There are some things of cricket that should be left the traditional way.
 
While technology has been integrated into cricket in various ways, such as the Decision Review System (DRS) for umpiring decisions, changes to fundamental elements of the game, like the stumps and bails, are subject to careful consideration and scrutiny. Any potential rule change or introduction of new technology would require thorough testing and consultation with stakeholders in the cricket community.
 
Atleast we all can agree that DRS is pretty fair. And a very fair method to implement in games affected by rain
 
LBW law ... the only thing that should matter is whether the ball would have hit the stumps but for the pads intercepting it. All the additional criteria added makes it a very contrived law to ensure that the batsman are unduly favored.
 
uppercut said:
LBW law ... the only thing that should matter is whether the ball would have hit the stumps but for the pads intercepting it. All the additional criteria added makes it a very contrived law to ensure that the batsman are unduly favored.
Click to expand...
Pitching outside leg never made sense to me, like it's plump hitting the wickets but not put cause outside leg lol.
 
mominsaigol said:
Pitching outside leg never made sense to me, like it's plump hitting the wickets but not put cause outside leg lol.
Click to expand...
Yup ... and back in the really old days the ball had to actually pitch in line with the stumps ... even pitching outside off was not out lol.
 
Teams are allowed to take only 15 players for ICC events. Isn't that too low?

All teams would prefer having 1) a back-up wicket keeper 2) a back-up batsman 3) a back-up all-rounder 4) a back-up spinner and 5-6) 2 back-up fast bowlers in a long tournament like the 2023 World Cup where all teams have to play 9 pool matches.

So why aren't teams allowed to have 17 players which is the correct number?

Should the squads to restricted to 15? Or should the ICC increase the number? Lets discuss
 
saqib.rai said:
Teams are allowed to take only 15 players for ICC events. Isn't that too low?

All teams would prefer having 1) a back-up wicket keeper 2) a back-up batsman 3) a back-up all-rounder 4) a back-up spinner and 5-6) 2 back-up fast bowlers in a long tournament like the 2023 World Cup where all teams have to play 9 pool matches.

So why aren't teams allowed to have 17 players which is the correct number?

Should the squads to restricted to 15? Or should the ICC increase the number? Lets discuss
Click to expand...
You can take up to 30 to travel with you,

The host nation only pays for the accommodation and travel of 15 plus staff
 
If there is a delayed start due to bad weather, the toss should be done during the delayed time so that time isn't wasted.
On a day like today where rain is predicted to come intermittently, every moment of dry weather is vital and should not be wated to toss a coin.
 
Only two bouncers in an over or something. Bowlers should be allowed to throw bouncers whenever they want.
 
There should be minimum limit criteria for ground dimensions. IMO, the shortest dimension of the part of a ground should not be below 65m. Grounds should be rennovated if required to adhere.

Only one ball should be used per innings in ODIs.
 
Asad T said:
If there is a delayed start due to bad weather, the toss should be done during the delayed time so that time isn't wasted.
On a day like today where rain is predicted to come intermittently, every moment of dry weather is vital and should not be wated to toss a coin.
Click to expand...

This is such a quintessentially cricket type thing!
 
Guys shouldn't the target given to Sri Lanka have increased instead of decreasing by one run?

From what I understand about DLS:

IF Pakistan knew it was a 42 over match from the START instead of getting to know after 27.4 overs, then Pakistan would have gone harder and scored more runs. So when Pakistan's innings ended at 42 overs, runs should be added to Pakistan's tally.

Or am i missing something?
 
saqib.rai said:
Guys shouldn't the target given to Sri Lanka have increased instead of decreasing by one run?

From what I understand about DLS:

IF Pakistan knew it was a 42 over match from the START instead of getting to know after 27.4 overs, then Pakistan would have gone harder and scored more runs. So when Pakistan's innings ended at 42 overs, runs should be added to Pakistan's tally.

Or am i missing something?
Click to expand...
yeah a very valid point! in the middle of the overs pakistan got to know that they have lost 3 more overs so how come they never awared few more runs.
 
Also what do you guys feel about the LBW law?

I understand the logic behind pitching on off-stump but WHY SHOULD IT PITCH IN LINE WITH THE STUMPS? If its hitting the stumps, it should be out
 
If the fielder touches the boundary while collecting/catching the ball, it’s a 4 or 6.

Why the heck should the batsman be awarded 4 or 6 runs for failing to clear the field?
 
saqib.rai said:
Also what do you guys feel about the LBW law?

I understand the logic behind pitching on off-stump but WHY SHOULD IT PITCH IN LINE WITH THE STUMPS? If its hitting the stumps, it should be out
Click to expand...
I ay basic club level cricket and can explain why. This rule was made to avoid negative legside bowling on the pads. If pitched outside leg still is given out if its hitting stumps- bowlers will just bowl negative lines all day and it will make cricket extremely boring.

Back in the 90s and 00s negative bowling was very common especially in test cricket and it made borin viewing. So this rule protects the integrity of the game and prevents negative bowling
 
PakLFC said:
Only two bouncers in an over or something. Bowlers should be allowed to throw bouncers whenever they want.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Should be increased to 3 what will all the astronaut level of protection for the batsmen lol 🙂
 
deltexas said:
I ay basic club level cricket and can explain why. This rule was made to avoid negative legside bowling on the pads. If pitched outside leg still is given out if its hitting stumps- bowlers will just bowl negative lines all day and it will make cricket extremely boring.

Back in the 90s and 00s negative bowling was very common especially in test cricket and it made borin viewing. So this rule protects the integrity of the game and prevents negative bowling
Click to expand...
No no I get why it should PITCH on the off-side. However, why should it pitch in-line with the stumps?
 
The mankad law is particularly so irritating for me because if you dismiss someone through a mankad, it raises questions about the spirit of cricket. So why is this rule even in place if it goes against the spirit of the game?
 
Cricket Warrior said:
The mankad law is particularly so irritating for me because if you dismiss someone through a mankad, it raises questions about the spirit of cricket. So why is this rule even in place if it goes against the spirit of the game?
Click to expand...
The ICC did what they could do and replaced the term 'mankad' with run-out.

However, many people still don't blame the non-striker for leaving the crease early and gaining an unfair advantage but point fingers at the bowler for running him out. Tragic
 
saqib.rai said:
Not pitch. But hit the batter in-line with the stumps? The SECOND red when the a team takes a DRS
Click to expand...
Assumption being if it hits in line with the stumps - it will hit the stumps.. if you start giving lbw for each ball just hitting the stumps no matter where it pitched then teams will get dismissed very quickly lol🙂. Purpose of an lbw is to be absolutely sure its hitting the stumps. Benefit of doubt goes to the batsman anyday. After all they get only 1 chance whereas a bowler can keep bowling any number of balls continuously.
 
Cricket Warrior said:
The mankad law is particularly so irritating for me because if you dismiss someone through a mankad, it raises questions about the spirit of cricket. So why is this rule even in place if it goes against the spirit of the game?
Click to expand...
It is called a run out now and perfectly legal per icc. It's just the media and some ex players that create a circus out.of it. Even in our basic local club cricket we implement it
 
Why do the crease lines have to be so thick as more thickness means higher the grey area (some part of foot inside/outside bla bla). Why not make it thinner and instead of TV umpires applying their own limited brains, let the technology decide if the foot or bat has crossed the line or not.
 
Dont count the run if non-striker left the crease before ball is released. And current run-out rule should stay as it is.
Bowler should've all the rights to get non-striker out if he is taking unfair advantage.

Also players and fans need to accept this rule to normalize it. A batsman should be gutted with himself for getting out in this manner rather than questioning the spirit of the bowler. Spirit of the game goes for a walk of all batsmen when they don't walk after edging the ball unless umpire says so.
 
mominsaigol said:
Pitching outside leg never made sense to me, like it's plump hitting the wickets but not put cause outside leg lol.
Click to expand...
It is to prevent negative bowling. Bowlers may keep pitching outside leg as it is much easier to hit the pads from that angle because batsman's view is obstructed. And the pad also comes in the way of bat
 
Thanos said:
Dont count the run if non-striker left the crease before ball is released. And current run-out rule should stay as it is.
Bowler should've all the rights to get non-striker out if he is taking unfair advantage.

Also players and fans need to accept this rule to normalize it. A batsman should be gutted with himself for getting out in this manner rather than questioning the spirit of the bowler. Spirit of the game goes for a walk of all batsmen when they don't walk after edging the ball unless umpire says so.
Click to expand...
The problem with not counting the run is that most of the time the team doesn't care about the run.
What matters is changing the strike which can be successfully done if non-striker leaves crease early
 
saqib.rai said:
The problem with not counting the run is that most of the time the team doesn't care about the run.
What matters is changing the strike which can be successfully done if non-striker leaves crease early
Click to expand...
Agree. And that's why I suggested to keep both rules. Like no ball, third umpire should also check if non striker has left earlier and mark runs taken invalid.
In addition keep current rule intact where bowler can run out the non striker for leaving early.
Making this a normal thing will force batsmen to stop taking unfair advantage.
 
Bewal Express said:
Phil Hughes- Nothing to do with bad light. And often it's done to protect the fielders but no one knows from what?
Click to expand...
I know nothing to do with bad light. But bad light increases the danger of a batsman/bowler/fielder getting hit
 
saqib.rai said:
I know nothing to do with bad light. But bad light increases the danger of a batsman/bowler/fielder getting hit
Click to expand...
Can you examples when its happened. Can you give any examples of damaged fielders? I can understand it if Malcolm Marshall or Allan Donald were bowling but most guys are around 85mph or less and pose little danger.
 
Bewal Express said:
Can you examples when its happened. Can you give any examples of damaged fielders? I can understand it if Malcolm Marshall or Allan Donald were bowling but most guys are around 85mph or less and pose little danger.
Click to expand...
No example as the umpires tell players to go off when it's bad light.

And that's good. Just so a member on pakpassion can get an example, lives cannot be put at risk.
 
saqib.rai said:
No example as the umpires tell players to go off when it's bad light.

And that's good. Just so a member on pakpassion can get an example, lives cannot be put at risk.
Click to expand...
But we saw in Karachi and at other times they have played on. In Karachi it was totally dark but no injuries. Strange
 
Bewal Express said:
But we saw in Karachi and at other times they have played on. In Karachi it was totally dark but no injuries. Strange
Click to expand...
Target was 176

When England were at 170, the batsman hits Saqlain for a four that goes between two fielders on the boundary. Both fielders DONT move an inch as they cant see the ball.

Watch the highlights on YouTube, its comical
 
saqib.rai said:
Target was 176

When England were at 170, the batsman hits Saqlain for a four that goes between two fielders on the boundary. Both fielders DONT move an inch as they cant see the ball.

Watch the highlights on YouTube, its comical
Click to expand...
Saw that match live. Steve bucknor I think was the umpire and there was ridiculous time wasting tactics from Moin Khan who was the captain. Moin wanted to draw it and England was in a winning position and as he was delaying and wasting time for frivolous things for bad light ti set in, the umpire decided to prolong it no matter what as long the batsmen were ok which the English batsmen were. So this was all on Moin. Irony was he set defensive fields- instead if he had set attacking fields he could have put pressure on England and dismissed them and win the game
 
saqib.rai said:
Target was 176

When England were at 170, the batsman hits Saqlain for a four that goes between two fielders on the boundary. Both fielders DONT move an inch as they cant see the ball.

Watch the highlights on YouTube, its comical
Click to expand...
That was more an attempt to stop the game. If the batsman can see it, then the fielders are not in danger and never have been. Show me the dead and injured fielders and i am with you
 
I think the batsman impact outside the line of off stump for LBW rulings should be scrapped. It makes no sense. If the batsman is beaten and it’s going to hit the stumps he should be out. What difference does it make if he got outside the line.

Most of the time if it’s hit outside the line and going on to hit the stumps it’s gotta be a pretty good ball to do that, and we take that away from a bowler?

Scrap it
 
How do you guys feel about batsman taking byes and getting to the other end EVEN when the keeper has collected the ball cleanly and hit the stumps?

It just doesn't look good. When the competition is between bat and ball, how can you steal a run when you have not even hit the ball?
 
The 10 changes that former Indian cricketer Akash Chopra has proposed

An extra over for wicket-taking bowler​

“A bowler who takes two wickets in white-ball cricket should get an extra over. A batsman can play the entire 20 or 50 overs if he is batting well, but the bowler can bowl only four or ten overs. So if he is a successful bowler that day, the captain should have an option to give him an extra over.”

Addition fielder inside the circle for slow over rate​

“Overs after the stipulated time in T20 and ODI should have extra fielder in the circle. There can be nothing better than this, all teams will fall in line.”

Declare batsman out if bails flash​

“If the LED stumps light up, it should be out. The zing bails are heavy, they light up but they don’t fall off at times. They light up only when the connection is lost, so please do not penalize the bowler.”

No soft signal outside the 30-year circle ​

“No soft signal outside the 30-yard circle. I can understand it within the circle but beyond that, it is an absolute waste of time. How can an umpire figure out if the foot touched the boundary or not?”

Take the help of third umpire​

“The on-field umpire should be able to take assistance from the 3rd umpire in case of doubt. There should be conclusive evidence in such a scenario, whether out or not out.”

8 runs for 100+ metre six

“8 runs for 100+ meter long sixes. There should be some advantage of hitting such huge sixes. I am not saying 90, I am saying 100 meters. You need a lot of power to hit a 100m six. This might be implemented in some league, international cricket, I don’t know.”

Same balls to be used in ODI cricket

“When you talk about ODI cricket, it is played with two balls. So the ball is only 25 overs old at the end. There was a time when the same ball was used for the entire 50 overs and the ball used to reverse then. The spinners also want a ball that is 35-odd overs old. So, you should keep just the one ball.”

Do not count bouncer as wide​

“If a bouncer has gone over the head and the umpire has given a wide, it should not be counted as a bouncer. It is already an illegitimate delivery and the bouncer should not be wasted in that. In T20 cricket, once a bouncer goes over the head, the batsman can get right forward and play any shot, so the bowler’s hands are tied.”

No leg byes ​

“Get rid of the leg byes. It is a game of bat and ball and not the pads. The batsman actually got beaten, then why should the team get runs in such a scenario. It is a fantasy, it is not going to happen.”

Umpires to rule batters out only once the ball is dead​

“Umpires should wait for the ball to get dead before giving out. If the umpire gives a batsman out wrongly and the ball goes to the boundary since the umpire had given it out, the ball is considered dead and you don’t get the runs.”
 
I’ve always thought in limited overs cricket there should be a bowling powerplay where the bowlers get some advantage. Don’t know what form it should take, but it would give an extra dimension to the game.

Back in an indoor league I used to play in a few years ago. We used to get a half taped ball and use that to swing it round corners. Need to find something that gives the bowlers an advantage
 
TheSultan said:
I’ve always thought in limited overs cricket there should be a bowling powerplay where the bowlers get some advantage. Don’t know what form it should take, but it would give an extra dimension to the game.

Back in an indoor league I used to play in a few years ago. We used to get a half taped ball and use that to swing it round corners. Need to find something that gives the bowlers an advantage
Click to expand...
There used to be a bowling and batting powerplay in ODI.
However, bowling teams used to take the bowling powerplay right after the first mandatory powerplay of 10 overs and batting teams in the last 5 overs of the innings.

It didn't have an element of surprise and became so obvious that the ICC scrapped it.
 
saqib.rai said:
There used to be a bowling and batting powerplay in ODI.
However, bowling teams used to take the bowling powerplay right after the first mandatory powerplay of 10 overs and batting teams in the last 5 overs of the innings.

It didn't have an element of surprise and became so obvious that the ICC scrapped it.
Click to expand...
Yes I remember this, and it was pointless. The whole concept of that was timing - they gave control to the bowling side about when, not what.

The conditions remained the same with amount of fielders outside the circle.

Maybe don’t give control of when, but give them advantage. Maybe bowling powerplay always occurs at 25-32 overs and give the bowling side a brand new ball for those overs or a very old dog eaten ball (for reverse swing) or a special ball with a more pronounced seam. Something that gives the bowling side an advantage. It certainly would give those boring middle overs some meaning.
 
sweep_shot said:
Some laws I want to see changed/introduced:

1) Umpire's call. I think it should be gone.

2) Bail shouldn't have to be dislodged for a dismissal. If the ball hits the wicket, it should be out.

3) I think they should go back to using one ball in ODI. No need for two new balls.

4) Unlimited bouncers should be allowed.
Click to expand...
How will you determine stumping and runout when the fielder or keeper has ball in his hands??
 
FearlessRoar said:
Mankad, which India and Afg is trying to normalize by practicing this rule
Click to expand...
Mankato should be legal or simply third umpire should deduct run if the non striker runs ahead. LIke they check for no balls, staying in crease for non striker should be mandatory.
 
Saanji said:
How will you determine stumping and runout when the fielder or keeper has ball in his hands??
Click to expand...

If ball touches the stump, it should be out.

If keeper/fielder has ball in his hands, if hand touches stump, it should be out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ball Blazer
  • Poll Poll
Ball not dead, bails knocked off - Why was Mohammad Rizwan not out hit-wicket?
Replies
35
Views
1K
HitWicket
H
Cricket Warrior
[EXCLUSIVE] "Domestic cricket has no respect": Hammad Azam
Replies
4
Views
809
Savak
Savak
BouncerGuy
Australia cricket rocked by ball tampering claim as probe launched
Replies
0
Views
209
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
M
Is common sense lacking in the Pakistan team?
Replies
31
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
U
No fire, no fight: Is the current bowling lineup the worst in Pakistan cricket history?
Replies
42
Views
1K
jnaveen1980
J
Back
Top