The Worst Rules in Cricket
The runner
Allowing a runner for a batsman is a copout option. Harden up! He should either be forced to retire meekly (or on a stretcher) or play on and be a martyr. Fatigue from running should be part of the game. I'd enjoy watching an injured player forced to blaze boundaries and turn down singles to protect their hamstring. It would be remiscent of Jacob Oram batting with Chris Martin - no faith whatsoever so just unleashes Gray-Nicolls hell to all corners.
Obstructing the field
"Either batsman is out obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the opposing side by word or action." We might as well get rid of this one as well as it is never - OK, OK, anoraks of the world: very rarely - applied. A batsman runs through for a cheeky single and deliberately runs to obscure the wickets from the fielder. He wears the ball raked in at 150kmh on the back of his leg but a bruise is much better than a trudge back to the dressing room. Now this should be out according to the letter of the law, yet never is. And as for the distracting by word - this is totally ridiculous and never applied.
The double bounce rule
"...No ball if a ball which he considers to have been delivered, without having previously touched the bat or person of the striker, either (i) bounces more than twice or (ii) rolls along the ground, before it reaches the popping crease..." Poor old AB de Villiers learned the cold hard realities of this law last week. De Villiers had made 46 against Bangladesh when he pulled a ball from Mohammad Ashraful which had bounced twice before reaching his bat. Ashraful took the return catch, but de Villiers stood his ground. Umpire Steve Bucknor found himself mired in controversy yet again, only this time he was both decisive and correct in sending ABdeV packing. It is a stupid rule though - a ball that bounces twice should be a no ball and the bowler should be sent back to Bowling Primary School.
Compulsory change: white ball
This is a rubbish idea, and removes the phenomenon of reverse swing from one-day cricket. A rule which allows the ball to be changed if it is damaged beyond all recognition could still apply, but there need not be anything compulsory about the need for the change, nor the timing of it. One of the charms of an ODI, and that set it apart from T20, is that it is still a contest between bat and ball, albeit an impure one. This rule tilts the balance still further in the oak brandisher's favour. However, with the 50-over format arguably set to be superseded by T20 cricket after 2012, it might only be around for a few years anyway.
Free hit: front foot no-ball
I can cope with introducing an element of slog into one-dayers, but why does this only apply to front foot no-balls? Bouncers, beamers, underarm and chucking should also be subjected to the free hit rule.
The 15 degrees rule
This one is definitely a disgrace - it should be up to an umpire to determine whether a cricket is chucking. I'm with Martin Crowe, who said in the 2006 Cowdrey Lecture: "I don't care about 15 degrees here or 10 degrees there. If to the naked eye a bowler is chucking, he should be chucked out." Amen to that. Without arming the men in white with a protractor and a freezeframe TV screen, this is just not going to be enforced on the day when the perpetrator is using his dodgy action to take wickets and influence matches.
The boundary rope
Bring back the picket fence. If the ball goes over the picket fence, it's six. If it does not, it's four. And if you're a fielder eager to massacre yourself trying to field the ball from reaching or crossing the boundary, tough luck. As a generous compromise, a padded picket fence would be acceptable.
Overthrows
A fielder throws the stumps down and the batsmen scamper through for a cheeky little overthrow. Meanwhile, the poor bloke backing up is sprawled out on the grass and completely bamboozled by the unpredictable deflection off the woodwork. Not fair. Good fielding and shies at the stumps should be rewarded, rather than punished. In the non-establishment Indian Cricket League, any ball that hits the stumps from a fielder's throw is dead and overthrows are banned. Of course, should you shy and miss, they still count.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I was given out for "obstructing the field" while playing junior club cricket. I got a massive leading edge while attempting a flick through midwicket, with the ball going straight up in the air with plenty of time for the bowler to steady himself just to the side of the wicket and line up the catch. I ran directly at him at full pace while yelling "Two! Two! He's gonna drop it" - before pulling off a massive sidestep that Sivivatu would of been proud of. The bowler dropped it as I smugly made my ground at the non-striker's end. The umpire (also our coach) gave me out for obstructing the field, and then gave me a serve after the game for my unsportsmanlike conduct. It was a huge learning curve...for a 12 year old. I have played cricket ever since and am now a proud "walker" - long before Gilly made "walking" cool... p.s Stoked the Aussies lost!
Bruce: That is truly outstanding. I assume the bowler wasn't Andrew Symonds or even your Fijian sidestep might not have been enough to save you from the might and power of the dreadlocked one's shoulder.
Forty minutes for lunch. That's the stupidest rule in cricket. It's not as if the players sit down to Yorkshire pudding and boiled root vegetables now is it. When you can get all your nourishment in a banana or muesli bar, taking 40 minutes for a break is plain ridiculous.
The chucking rule is a load of b******* and if anyone is chucking then it is taking the art of bowling to another level. It's too late it's part of the game like so many other things in the game such as third umpire and the likes. The game has to move forward or bowlers aren't going to be able to reach for the next level that is there - that is my opinion and while I don't like chucking I'm afraid it's part of the future adaptions of the game.
Millen, I have to disagree. The lunch break is a very important part of the game. It is the time that we get to wander onto the pitch (well at least at the Basin) and expend a little bit of energy and have a lark. When at home watching, it gives me just enough time to do the lawns or walk the dog or whatever other crap my wife wants me to do on my day off, and still get back to watch the afternoon session. Love the lunch break, need the lunch break.
But these are the idiosyncrasies of cricket. Rules that makes cricket pleasantly quirky.
Except the 15° rule. It epitomise the brainless rules makers of international cricket. A complete lack of common sense.
A simple rule has been made too complicated by employing high-tech bio-mechanics that can only measure degrees, but can never judge if an action is a genuine 'throw'.
I do not intend to spam, but this a topic I have ranted a lot about, with almost none in agreement. http://thesillypoint.com/blogs/2007/10/23/doosra-is-it-at-all-possible-to-bowl-a-legal-doosra/ I would appreciate your views.
Chinaman: I'm no expert with a protractor, but it seems that everything else is up to the umpire to decide and the players to accept, but not the chucking rule. That seems instinctively wrong to me. Dan Vettori can bowl a chinaman googly in the nets but apparently he has to bend the arm to do it so it never gets unleashed in the bearpit.
I can't stand clowns who biff the ball at the stumps completely and utterly in vain when the running batsmen is clearly home. If you are daft enough and enough of a hero to hurl it for no good reason - and you hit - and it heads off for a boundary overthrow - good, you deserve it.
Like most of the other suggestions, esp abolishing the runner. That's brilliant. Stand and slog I say.
Silly Point: Ok, a compromise. If a direct hit is referred to the 3rd umpire (i.e. is bloody close), then no extra runs can be taken. This encourages slightly more judicious biffing. Personally I am a huge fan of relentless shies at the stumps/batsman during indoor cricket.
Earthquakes shake north and south of NZ
Engineer's report prompts mall evacuation
Quakes blow Wellington's benchmark
Author, 12, gives proceeds to cancer research
Baby murder-accused sobs, sniffles in court
Daily trivia quiz: February 11
A burning issue: When coffins get too big
NZ police access Facebook evidence
Helmet law halves cyclist numbers
CERA report prompts mall evacuation
Top selling games in New Zealand
Leave the overthrows rule as it is - if you throw the stumps down and the batsman is not out, then you shouldn't have been so presumptuous. If the fielder backing up looks like a fool, so be it. It gives the rest of the team something to fine him for in the shed afterwards.
The one rule I would look at changing is the front foot no-ball. The old back foot rule was horrible for groundsmen as it encouraged big hairy bowlers to dig large holes by dragging their back foot, but it gave the umpires more time to make the call - thereby giving the batsman more time to punish the bowler for such malicious cheating.
One rule that could be better enforced - when the umpire gives someone out, they are supposed to point their finger up in the air. Is Billy just being silly, or does he have a physical problem that should be accommodated by a rule change?