Stupid and outdated cricket rules

praveen

First Class Player
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Runs
2,706
List all those cricket rules that you feel can or needs to be changed across all formats. Here's my top two.

1. Batsman running for overthrows even after the ball hitting them.
2. umpires not allowed to officiate in their own country.

P.S: Lets use the thread to discuss the current existing rules and not for suggestion of new rules.
 
A wide ball going (over-head height) called one for the over in LOIs. Bowlers should be allowed to bowl 1 legitimate bouncer in the over
 
D/L method also needs to be updated. The current method doesnt take powerplays into account
 
Flipping the coin to decide who will bat or ball first.
 
Why do they still need to have tea after it's rained most of the day?
 
A wide ball going (over-head height) called one for the over in LOIs. Bowlers should be allowed to bowl 1 legitimate bouncer in the over
no i dont think so. It makes it more exciting knowing that the batsman could score off every ball in limited overs cricket.
 
I dont think the rules should be changed.

It's good running for overthrows, it creates excitement especially in limited overs. Makes sure fielders are on top of their game, always trying to limit runs.

Umpire rule is good, as people complain about umpires all the time really. If it's a bad call from an umpire favoring the same team umpire's from, there's going to be case sooner or later where he's charged to be biased. An umpire may tend to be biased maybe not even intentionally, but because they want their team to win so badly. So that's a good rule, it helps prevent any big problems that could arise from allowing umpires to umpire in their own country.
 
A wide ball going (over-head height) called one for the over in LOIs. Bowlers should be allowed to bowl 1 legitimate bouncer in the over

you beat me to it. this rule has never made any sense and i swear they were high when they made it. you allow the bowler to bowl a bouncer per over but if it goes 2 high they get called wide and have subsequently also used that 1 bouncer per the over.


rule needs to be modified asap, and i'm surprised it still exists as the status quo.
 
no i dont think so. It makes it more exciting knowing that the batsman could score off every ball in limited overs cricket.

you're saying a batsman can't score off a bouncer?

hm...
 
no i dont think so. It makes it more exciting knowing that the batsman could score off every ball in limited overs cricket.



that rule should have been scrapped as soon as the free hit rule came into place
the theory behind both is the same
 
Bowl out

Toss is important, there should be some skill attached to it

Yeah actually I agree.

The toss in cricket probably holds more importance than in any other sport, and that's why there should be some skill attached to who gets to bowl or bat first.

I don't think a bowl out is the best way, maybe a super over. I don't know, but something quick obviously.
 
Interesting discussion.

1. Neutral umpires were a must in tests and it took a lot of pressure of the umpires. Now that we have technology and UDRS the need isn't there imo esp since the lack of quality umpires around.

2. The team behind in the series should be allowed to choose instead of there being a toss. This will help for a more competitive series both in tests and odi's.
 
Another rule that really annoys me is that bowlers have to look back (as in appealing) for every damn wicket, even when the batsman has nicked one to slips and it is clear as daylight.

If they dont, they are charged for dissent. What rubbish!
 
no i dont think so. It makes it more exciting knowing that the batsman could score off every ball in limited overs cricket.

doesnt excite me. And it kills the point of one head-high bouncer allowed per over
 
1. Neutral umpires were a must in tests and it took a lot of pressure of the umpires. Now that we have technology and UDRS the need isn't there imo esp since the lack of quality umpires around.

I agree. Problem is that no cricket board has worked consistently enough to groom umpires and this neutral umpire thing blocks the way for local umpires to come up and show what they've got. It leaves very little space for them to prove their credentials. I'd say if UDRS is inplace for all test/ODIs, only home umpires should be officiating the match.
 
I like the first idea - imagine Ramiz officiating the rock, paper, scissors match between Mohammad Yousuf and Daniel Vettori.

or Strauss: "Paper", Afridi: "Kalashnikov".

:afridi
 
Amount of home series played should be a limit because it effects the icc rankings EXAMPLE INDIA
 
these 3 changes should be made -

udrs should be used in every series

day/night test matches should be there

ireland & afghanistan should be given test status immediately
 
Flipping the coin to decide who will bat or ball first.

I agree. The visiting team should be allowed to decide if they will bat first or bowl first since the home team prepares the pitch. I feel this will help in playing more competitive cricket and will reduce number of one sided matches
 
List all those cricket rules that you feel can or needs to be changed across all formats. Here's my top two.

1. Batsman running for overthrows even after the ball hitting them.
2. umpires not allowed to officiate in their own country.

P.S: Lets use the thread to discuss the current existing rules and not for suggestion of new rules.

disagree on number 2, his stops prejudice in the game
 
these 3 changes should be made -

udrs should be used in every series

day/night test matches should be there

ireland & afghanistan should be given test status immediately

If you are adding Ireland and Afghanistan then also add a two tier system along the lines of relegation system for last team of first tier and top team of second tier on yearly basis
 
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/491190.html

1991

Somewhere along the way - between Paul Terry's broken arm and Mike Gatting's pulped nose - the West Indies pace quartet of the 1980s picked up a reputation for intimidatory bowling. Other teams, when they weren't complaining about the blows inflicted on their bodies and psyche, started to point at West Indies' over-rate, which sometimes crawled along at just 70 a day.

Something had to give, and when it did it tilted the balance completely the other way. In 1991, the ICC introduced the "one bouncer per batsman per over" rule in an attempt to end the intimidation, and buck up the over-rates. Flat-track bullies rejoiced but fast bowlers, already condemned to bowling on shirtfronts in most parts of the world, weren't amused, and vociferous protests saw the law amended in 1994 to incorporate two bouncers per over. One-day cricket took much longer to listen to the bowlers' pleas, and it was only in 2001 that once bouncer per over was allowed.
 
these 3 changes should be made -

udrs should be used in every series

day/night test matches should be there

ireland & afghanistan should be given test status immediately

yeah so tendulkar goes to score 100 centuries :D
 
Teams shouldn't have to play away games if they don't want to and games outside the subcontinent shouldn't be counted as being at Test level :sachin
 
I dont think the rules should be changed.

It's good running for overthrows, it creates excitement especially in limited overs. Makes sure fielders are on top of their game, always trying to limit runs.

Umpire rule is good, as people complain about umpires all the time really. If it's a bad call from an umpire favoring the same team umpire's from, there's going to be case sooner or later where he's charged to be biased. An umpire may tend to be biased maybe not even intentionally, but because they want their team to win so badly. So that's a good rule, it helps prevent any big problems that could arise from allowing umpires to umpire in their own country.

I dont agree with the second point. If an umpire is selected in the elite panel, he must be top class and its obvious that at such high standards biasing won't creep in. The idea is we should not lose good talent, because the umpire might cite hectic travel and contemplate retirement.
 
I think Bodyline should be allowed, at least in Test matches, and in ODIs, if they want to limit the use of the bouncer, don't make it only one per over, but three or four.
 
Flipping the coin to decide who will bat or ball first.

very interesting suggestion.nowadays toss plays such a vital factor in the game and if two teams are evenly matched,it might boil down to the toss.
However, the concept of Toss is traditional everywhere.Football,Tennis,cue sports,etc etc. In my opinion, the toss brings out the flavor associated with the sport and also tests the team's ability to quickly adjust itself to whatever result the toss holds.
 
why only two chances per innings for URDS?

well,if its less than two, then there is no margin for error at all.
It is more, then it will be one too many,and they might not learn how to use it judiciously.
 
these 3 changes should be made -

udrs should be used in every series

day/night test matches should be there

ireland & afghanistan should be given test status immediately

agree with the first two but not the last one, I don't think either of them would compete whatsoever. Ireland probably never will be able to, or at least not for a long time, whereas Afghan look really talented but need some ODIs against test-playing nations first (Ireland do abysmally in these games almost all of the time).
 
I dont agree with the second point. If an umpire is selected in the elite panel, he must be top class and its obvious that at such high standards biasing won't creep in. The idea is we should not lose good talent, because the umpire might cite hectic travel and contemplate retirement.

Excuse me? :billyd

I agree with your point but not the reasoning. But before that, first and foremost UDRS should be implemented in every Test & ODIs. Then yes, I want to see home umpires back. It'll mean less traveling, easy scheduling for umpires, and more good umpires coming through
 
somehow i'm not a big fan of udrs.
I fear it will lead to the concept of on-field umpiring becoming extinct.Technology should only intervene so much and the human element must not be taken away.
 
^ khuda kare ke Tendulkar har WC ke match mein wrong decision se out ho. And then we will consider this again
 
No runners should be allowed.

If a batsman cannot run - tough, retire hurt.
 
lose the batting powerplay.
lose the free hit.
lose the mandatory ball change.
abolish the switch hit.
don't award overthrows for ricochets off the stumps.
ban Harsha Bhogle from all forms of cricket/ sports with spherical objects.

and we're good.
 
lose the batting powerplay.
lose the free hit.
lose the mandatory ball change.
abolish the switch hit.
don't award overthrows for ricochets off the stumps.
ban Harsha Bhogle from all forms of cricket/ sports with spherical objects.

and we're good.



i agree with all except the switch hit and the overthrows
 
Paint small markers at the side of the pitch, every one metre, indicating distances from the stumps.

Will tell the bowlers the length to pitch the ball.
 
lose the batting powerplay.
lose the free hit.
lose the mandatory ball change.
abolish the switch hit.
don't award overthrows for ricochets off the stumps.
ban Harsha Bhogle from all forms of cricket/ sports with spherical objects.

and we're good.

you forgot one more
If all the above rules are implemented, ban spectators from snoozing :)
 
No runners should be allowed.

If a batsman cannot run - tough, retire hurt.

No. In a tight run chase, if the batsman picks up an injury which could be just out of sheer bad luck, it would be very unfair for him to retire and for his team to be considered losers when he did not lose his wicket, and might have scored the runs off the bat with a runner.
 
No. In a tight run chase, if the batsman picks up an injury which could be just out of sheer bad luck, it would be very unfair for him to retire and for his team to be considered losers when he did not lose his wicket, and might have scored the runs off the bat with a runner.
A totally stupid argument in favour of the status quo.

A Batsman picking up an injury due to bad luck is no different to a bowler picking up a bad injury which affected his bowling.

Also, if a batsman breaks a bone in his hand due to bad luck and is not able to bat anymore, or breaks some ribs, that is no different to a batsman picking up an injury and not being able to run anymore.

Why the special consideration to an anjury that is to the lower part of the body ?

Sounds like a totally arbitrary decision to give preferential treatment to the lower part of the body as opposed to the upper half!
 
Last edited:
Bowling powerplay.
Wth is the point of it anyways...It doesn't even help the bowling side.
It should changed to something else..Like 3 bouncers allowed in the overs..Or something, that would give the bowling side the advantage, and actually live up to the name "Bowling" powerplay.
 
bowling/batting powerplay is the same exact thing, they just change the name depending on what side takes it at the time. bowling and batting powerplays should be different to give the side that takes it a respective advantage.
 
No. In a tight run chase, if the batsman picks up an injury which could be just out of sheer bad luck, it would be very unfair for him to retire and for his team to be considered losers when he did not lose his wicket, and might have scored the runs off the bat with a runner.
I'm with the opinion of abolishing the runner favour. running is a part of scoring and if he cannot do that, he doesn't deserve it.

although I enjoyed india's recent victory over Australia at Mohali at that tensed moment, later I felt Australians were robbed because of this rule and it is very unfair. without the runner, VVS couldn't have made it. many years ago, I felt the same when Saeed Anwar scored 194 at Chennai.
 
1. ODIs should be played with new balls from both the ends like we had in the 1992 world cup.

2. If a ball is in play and even though the fielder is touching the ropes, it should not be a 4. Will save us a lot of time w.r.t checking with the TV umpire.

3. In ODIs, there should be no free hits on no balls.

4. 2 bouncers per over in ODIs.

5. In ODIs, 2 bowlers should be allowed to bowl a maximum of 12 overs

6. In test matches, a mandatory ball change after 100 overs
 
A wide ball going (over-head height) called one for the over in LOIs. Bowlers should be allowed to bowl 1 legitimate bouncer in the over

that could mean 50 balls in an ODI (or at least all those bowled by seamers) would be dot balls.

If a batsman cannot reach it, then should be called a wide.
 
bouncers are not called wide. wides are those which goes way much above batsmen's head.



thats not what he is suggesting
a bouncer that is called a wide should not be the one for the over, the bowler should b allowed one legitimate bouncer in the over

i disagree, i say he should be allowed three or four
 
thats not what he is suggesting
a bouncer that is called a wide should not be the one for the over, the bowler should b allowed one legitimate bouncer in the over

i disagree, i say he should be allowed three or four

If the bowler knows he won't be called for a wide. He will bounce it as high as possible so that it is out of the batsman's reach. then he only needs to worry about 5 balls in the over.

however forgetting that point. I don't have a problem with bowlers bowling 6 bouncers in the over, however if they are even an inch above the head, they should be wided.

that should satisfy your thirst for seeing a bouncers barrage
 
substitute only allowed to field.i think they should be allowed to do everything original man could've done.but should be only allowed in case of injury.not for toilet breaks or u r tired after a long innings.if u wanna have that.u gotto leave ur team to 10 men
 
^ fully agree...should be left to 10 men definitely.
 
Back
Top