Cricket rules which require urgent attention from the ICC
I suppose the first "harshness" of the playing rules to pop out from the recently concluded ODI World Cup was the net run-rate rule which was used as a tie-breaker to advance one team to the semi-finals in the event of ending up with the equal number of points on the table. Whilst it may look harsh, but I still think it´s a fair way to decide, especially given the lack of better alternatives. If people do end up coming up with better alternatives, I´m all for a change. However, below are a number of rules which require urgent attention on the part of the ICC.
1. The Umpire´s Call system:
..... Something should seriously done about the Umpire´s Call system. It leaves too much room for the decisions to go in the favour of one team. Purely by probability, you can have three batsmen from one team not being given out on the Umpire´s Call, and three given out from the other team based on the same system - even if the ball is hitting the stumps on exactly the same spot on all six occasions. I know I´m exaggerating in numbers but we´ve seen it happen in international cricket on two to three occasions in matches.
^
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-quot-Michael-Holding&p=10306265#post10306265 ^
This is a good enough reason to scrap it. We saw in the match between Australia and the West Indies I think where two batsmen from Australia were adjudged not out, and two from the West Indies were adjudged LBW. Don´t tell me that it was fair! We need to remove this probability, we need to eliminate this to make cricket a little bit more fair.
If the ball is any bit pitching in line, if the impact too is even marginally in line and even if the ball is just clipping the bails or one of the sides of the stumps, ALL batsmen should either be given out on that, or not out in this case. Just be done with this nonsense Umpire´s Call system.
2. One review for whole 300 balls is just too less.
As we saw it in the Final on Sunday, Guptill having wasted that precious review meant that Taylor couldn´t review the LBW decision even when the ball was clearly going over the stumps. It´s a little harsh that as a team you´re only allowed to make one error in judgment for the whole innings. I understand that allowing too many reviews would result in the wastage of time, but just one more review isn´t going to take too much time. If you want fairness in the game, then a minute of stoppage to play is perfectly fine. Another option would be to have a review for each of the 25 overs of the innings.
3. Overthrows off the bat should not result in runs.
I think it´s very cute and romantic that, upholding the spirit of the game, batsmen don´t run for extra runs if the ball rolls away after a deflection off their bat, but it should actually never come down to that at all. The rule requires a change. Any deflection off the bat or any body part of the batsmen, or even helmets etc., should never result in runs even if the ball goes away for four. It heavily changed the result of the World Cup Final on Sunday, and it could happen again on some big occasion if it´s not addressed right away!
4. Number of boundaries hit should never be a tie-breaker!
So, as I get it, the ICC is telling me that myself having run eight runs in an over is kind of a lesser effort than hitting two fours and playing out four dot balls in an over. How on earth and by what logic? Hitting more boundaries automatically means that you´ve played out more dot balls than the other team, and have wasted more number of deliveries in between the boundaries that you hit. What makes boundaries more precious than than the runs run with less dot balls?
Number of wickets lost is a better way to decide upon a winner. To my mind at least, it has no counter arguments, like the one I provided above for the scenario applied under the current rules. The other option could be to decide decide the winner upon the fewer number of balls played to reach a target, in case one of the teams get bowled out.
BUT SCRAP ALL THAT! Why not just play on? Surely, if those cricketers playing on are fit to play two more overs after the full 100 overs, then why can´t they just keep on playing the Super Over till we´ve a winner? It´s something that should definitely be there for an ICC tournament knockout match, especially a final. We want a clear winner, for God´s sake! However, if that can´t be done then just share the trophy and be done with it.
However, what we currently have in cricket, an equivalent of it in soccer for example would be, that if five penalties too are tied on the shoot-out, to choose a winner based on the number of chances created in the 120 minutes of play - completely overlooking that a chance missed is a chance successfully defended by the other team! *Pardon if the analogy just made no sense.*
5. Who bats first in the Super Over?
For no logical reasons, the current rules say that the team batting second gets to bat first in the Super Over. With just two wickets in hand for mere six balls, you cannot overlook that this gives an advantage to the team batting first. This is a plain foolish rule! Either let the captain decide who had won the toss before the match, or the toss should take place again. What logic on earth drives the fact that the team batting second should come out to bat again?
6. The ball should not be declared as dead after the umpire gives out.
This is a bit complicated and requires an explanation. I don´t have the relevant clause to shed light on this, but I shall explain through a couple of scenarios.
A) It´s a World Cup Final - yes, again (pardon the drama) - Pakistan require one run to tie the match, and two to win. Amir edges the ball to the keeper, the finger is raised, the match is over. However, in the hope of having a review left in the bank, Amir runs a "bye" off that delivery and goes upstairs. Here we found out that Amir never edged the ball to begin with, so it should be a valid bye run to have tied the match. We all celebrate, but we then find out that whereas the decision of him being dismissed is reversed, the run doesn´t count because the ball is declared dead the moment the umpire gives it out!
B) Again, the same happens. Pakistan require a boundary to win off the last ball. The ball hits the pad to then roll away to the boundary for a four. The umpire though has given it out. Shaheen Afridi reviews it. He has either hit the ball or the ball is missing the stumps anyway. Surely, the boundary should count and Pakistan should win, but no.... The ball was declared dead the moment raised his finger. Shaheen stays not out, Pakistan lose by three runs.
*Now, I raised this point on the forum in 2011 itself, when the introduction of the DRS was still fresh to the game. If in the meantime, this has been sorted out by the ICC, fair enough, just forget point five from my post. If it hasn´t been sorted out yet, now is the time to do it. All that cricket requires is some imaginative thinking on the part of the administrators.*
As an addition to the above is not necessarily a change of rule that I´d like to see, but maybe kind of a slight change to something: a bad decision is a bad decision, alright; part of the game. But it might well entirely possible be possible that the decision by the umpire´s to award Stokes/England a sixth run came as a result of the umpire´s not being either entirely aware in the heat of the moment, or having kind of overlooked the rules in tension. So there should be someone to intervene in case the umpire´s are acting contrary to the rules of the game. Ideally, the third umpire or the match referee too can do this job.
