ODI/T20I Rule Change Proposal!

[msb314]

So this is what I propose and I think would make the LOI games better - guess I dreamed up of this solution lol

I would recommend removing free hits from no-balls.


Instead - I would suggest giving any batsman a free hit whenever he crosses his half century but only one per innings.

The catch is the batsman can use the free hit whenever he wants but he must signal to the umpire before the ball is bowled that he would like to use the free hit. Only the batsman who crosses 50 can use the free hit - not the non-striker

This should NOT make the game more batsman friendly - the net effect would be the same!!

Think about it folks - how often does a batsman cross 50 in an ODI innings on average? Maybe 2-3 times. This is about the same number of no balls that a team would concede in an innings so it balances out!

Many batsman would think it is advantageous to use the free hit as soon as he crosses fifty so that it doesn't go to waste when he gets out - however there are other things to consider.

1) If a batsman is in the 90's - he may elect to use the free hit to get to his century. This is advantageous to to the batting side since the batsman will not "play selfishly" and consume to many dot balls to get to his hundred.

2) Instead of "playing out" a really good bowler like Amir or Starc - a batsman may elect to use the free hit so get some runs off of him and disturb his rhythm - esp towards the end of the innings.

3) A well set batsman may use the free hit towards the end of the innings during the death overs so that their momentum does not stall during the slog overs as a result of a new batsman having to come in.

IMO - it is not advantageous to use the free hit:

1) On the last ball of the innings.

2) Against a part time bowler that is leaking runs anyway.

This can lead to some interesting tactics and strategies from batsman.

I think it is an interesting idea - what do you all think?

 

[mmkextreme_1]

No way, not trying to insult your post, but this would seriously make a mockery of cricket.

No-ball after the bowler overstepping is fine. There have been countless instances where a team has not overstepped for a whole inning. I think Pakistan did it recently in NZL.

 

[msb314]

No way, not trying to insult your post, but this would seriously make a mockery of cricket.

No-ball after the bowler overstepping is fine. There have been countless instances where a team has not overstepped for a whole inning. I think Pakistan did it recently in NZL.

But there have also been many times when not a single half century was scored in an innings too right?

Wouldn't it balance out over the long run?

 

[mmkextreme_1]

But there have also been many times when not a single half century was scored in an innings too right?

Wouldn't it balance out over the long run?

But this would tilt the balance even more in favour of the batsmen. How demoralising would it be for a bowler to know this? I don't think it would balance out in the long run with the current flat pitches around the world.

I mean, a free hit for completing a 50? What about a bowler, what incentive should we give them, let's say for taking a 3-fer? Reduce the oppositions runs?

Also, why penalise a bowler and just give away free runs. The pressure of the 90s is there for a reason. Would take the fun out.

 

[msb314]

But this would tilt the balance even more in favour of the batsmen. How demoralising would it be for a bowler to know this? I don't think it would balance out in the long run with the current flat pitches around the world.

I mean, a free hit for completing a 50? What about a bowler, what incentive should we give them, let's say for taking a 3-fer? Reduce the oppositions runs?

Also, why penalise a bowler and just give away free runs. The pressure of the 90s is there for a reason. Would take the fun out.

Again I will point out that a half century in an innings only occurs 2 or 3 times so it is no less demoralizing than if a bowler bowled a no ball himself - which can happen once or twice in an innings anyway.

From a bowlers point of view - a good bowler knows how to negate a free hit by bowling on the pads or a wide yorker so a free hit can be harmless from a bowlers point of view.

Looking at the concept of a free hit - the ultimate advantage is that a batsman cannot be dismissed. For any particular ball - the probability of a batsman being dismissed is fairly low anyway at an aggregate level.

I don't think the rule change will favor batsman at a noticeable level.

 

[Rayyman]

Interesting proposal. Very innovative. But you have to give bowlers something too.

 

[msb314]

Interesting proposal. Very innovative. But you have to give bowlers something too.

Thanks!

What do you propose?

 

[da_don]

the reason for the no ball free hit is to punish the bowlers for stepping over the line.. your proposal takes away the punishment.. just bowl an extra ball and an extra run

 

[msb314]

the reason for the no ball free hit is to punish the bowlers for stepping over the line.. your proposal takes away the punishment.. just bowl an extra ball and an extra run

Good point but think about it from another point of view.

The "punishment" from a bowling unit is that they let the batsman reach 50 runs and not dismiss him sooner.

 

[Rayyman]

Thanks!

What do you propose?

A free Ball.

In which no run can be scored, but a wicket can be taken.

 

[msb314]

A free Ball.

In which no run can be scored, but a wicket can be taken.

Interesting!

Maybe a free ball can be given to a bowler after he he bowls a maiden over?

 

[gazza619]

My proposal is that if a bouncer hits the batter on the helmet, the batting team gets a minus 4.

This may turn the T20 Mickey mouse batter’s format into a real men’s game.

 

[BouncerGuy]

My proposal is that if a bouncer hits the batter on the helmet, the batting team gets a minus 4.

This may turn the T20 Mickey mouse batter’s format into a real men’s game.

interesting thing. Unusual but can be tried in some franchise cricket or domestic circuit.

 

[Asad T]

Mankand should be -4 runs instead of being out

 

[Ab Fan]

Interesting idea. Are we awarding the batsman a free hit because he crossed the 50 mark?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Why would the bowler elect to bowl this delivery? He has done nothing wrong but will have to expend extra energy for no reward.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

I will definitely change this umpire's call thing.

If the ball is hitting the stumps, that's it... give it out. There's no point sticking with umpire's call.