The ICC's executive board has ratified the recommendations of the ICC Chief Executives' Committee including the abolition of runners, the usage of new balls from each end in one-dayers, and regulation of when the batting and bowling Powerplays can be taken. In addition to approving the rule changes to ODIs, the board also gave their nod to two interesting amendments to run-out laws: From October 1, batsmen can be dismissed obstructing the field if they change their course while running to prevent a run-out chance. Additionally, bowlers will be allowed to run out a non-striker backing up unfairly, a rule that has not been in force in recent times.
I'm not happy with most of these changes for the following reasons:
!. A new ball at each end seams logical but it eliminates the skill some bowlers have to reverse swing the old ball.
2. The changes in the run out rule concerning unfair backing up, will put pressure on umpires to make difficult judgements when his attention should be elsewhere. He will normally be watching the popping crease for a no-ball, but now must look in two directions, for the possible no-ball and the backing up of the batsman.
Also determining whether the change of direction of a batsman was unlawful will be create enormous controversy. Batsmen often are obliged to change direction to avoid running on the wicket or to avoid collision with the bowler. Determining whether such a change in direction was necessary is problematic.
3. Not allowing batsmen a runner is fair enough for cramp or a player who had a pre-existing condition, but surely a player who gets a leg injury during the game should be allowed a runner. Jaques Kallis is bowling and turns his ankle or is stuck on the foot by a fierce drive, is now unable to bat.
The rule change about power plays is a good one but this obsession administrators have with tinkering with the ODI game will create more problems than it solves.
ODI rule changes!
posted on 29/6/11
One final thing (bit of a rant I know...) but you mention fairness, do you think it's fair for an unfit player like Mark Cosgrove or formerly fat Yuvraj to run hard a bit, get tired and then get a hare between the stumps to come out and do the work for him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not really what happens - except on rare occasions - though is it?
posted on 29/6/11
No its not fair for unfit players to have runners - if they go off injured and it means a doctor advising the umpires then so be it - but its all getting a bit "just not cricket" isnt it
posted on 29/6/11
Maybe the opposition captain should pick the runner.
posted on 29/6/11
Ginger do you remember a few years back there was a NZ wicket keeper who at the end of a test, would challenge the slowest runner on the opposition team to a race.
I remember England chose Ashley Giles who went onto win.
There's two possible choices for a captain.
posted on 29/6/11
I can't remember that. Seriously though it may stop players from feigning injury?
posted on 29/6/11
I think where runners are concerned it should be left up to the umpires. Surely it must be possible to judge when one of the fielding side is injured and should be allowed a runner, compared to someone who's batting claims he needs a runner.
Nobody in their right mind would prefer to have a runner by choice.
posted on 29/6/11
Nobody in their right mind would prefer to have a runner by choice.
------------------------
Some would if tired but no, not normally.
posted on 29/6/11
Surely it's an easy decision to determine if a batsman is injured sufficiently to warrant a runner. If there's doubt the no runner.
If the rules of cricket continue to kick long standing traditions into the long grass we will end up like American football.
Teams will consist of 22 players, eleven defensive consisting of many bowlers and top fielders and eleven of super batsmen.
The day of the timeless tests will return.
posted on 30/6/11
I do quite like the idea of the opposition captain picking the runner Ginger...could lead to some rather entertaining situations.
In a more tragic way I don't think things have fallen into the realm of 'just not cricket' for a while have they?
posted on 30/6/11
True Danny - but isnt that down to the ICC over the last 10 years or so - changes for changes sake - the article comes full circle Even the GREAT MA Holding walked out on their meddling - we should try and hold on as long as poss