Things that give u the hit list ....

[CoverKing]

For mine, the Leg Bye rule should stay how it is.

The beauty of cricket is that it has had minimal rule changes to test cricket for years! It is still the same form of game as it was when it started. The best part of cricket (some may find the most annoying) is that it is a very openly understood game. Some people may read a rule one way, whereas another person will read it one way.

Keep the game as it is!

[mal]

The leg bye rule was made b4 the advent of helmets
Were the actual Leg Bye laws taking into account helmets about a century later ?

Can you image a test match in 1870
Ned Kelly with his armoury on would charge at WG GRACE
He would swipe at the ball and intentionally miss it, and allow the ball to hit the armoury
With a bit of luck it will hit the edge of the armoury and obtain leg byes ...

Circa 2070
Batsman comes in with armoury protection with a trampoline technological covering
Every time the ball hits the protection it will richochet off the equipment at a startling speed

If you think these fictionals are stupid, yes they are
And about as stupid as the current hit the helmet and get freebie runs is

[rod_rooster]

For mine, the Leg Bye rule should stay how it is.

The beauty of cricket is that it has had minimal rule changes to test cricket for years! It is still the same form of game as it was when it started. The best part of cricket (some may find the most annoying) is that it is a very openly understood game. Some people may read a rule one way, whereas another person will read it one way.

Keep the game as it is!

As much as i dislike the rule allowing leg byes to be awarded when a batsman is taking evasive action i have to applaud you post and say it's one of the best i've seen on here for a while. Shows how great our game is and how its intricacies can caputure our imgagination and keep thing interesting for so long.

[dedja]

Is Mal a ...



???

Well maybe, but he's on the money methinks.

[CoverKing]

Cheers RR.

I just love cricket the way it is. Open to interpretation and no matter how experienced you are as a cricketer, you are continually learning. (as shown by today coverage, when discussing the no-ball rule, slater or taylor didnt realise the rule was where bowler landed such as Hauritz's case).

The open intepretation of our rules is part of why our game is so great!

[rod_rooster]

The leg bye rule was made b4 the advent of helmets
Were the actual Leg Bye laws taking into account helmets about a century later ?

Can you image a test match in 1870
Ned Kelly with his armoury on would charge at WG GRACE
He would swipe at the ball and intentionally miss it, and allow the ball to hit the armoury
With a bit of luck it will hit the edge of the armoury and obtain leg byes ...

Circa 2070
Batsman comes in with armoury protection with a trampoline technological covering
Every time the ball hits the protection it will richochet off the equipment at a startling speed

If you think these fictionals are stupid, yes they are
And about as stupid as the current hit the helmet and get freebie runs is

I agree mal but CK does make a very good point. Is the current rule making a significant impact on the game? I'd say no. As much as i disslike the fact that blokes who get completely beaten can still score runs for their team, perhaps at this point in time there isn't a need to change rules. If your body armour that smashes 6's comes out then it needs to be looked at for sure

[CoverKing]

I hope im around to see the day where the body armour will smash the ball for sixes!

I dare say, over time the runs that come off the helmet would even out over time for each side!!

[rod_rooster]

I hope im around to see the day where the body armour will smash the ball for sixes!

So do I. How cool would that be

[mal]

Heres another quirk, but cant confirm

If the ball hits a batsmans helmet and richchets over the fence it is deemed as 4 runs only
A boundary six can only be be scored if the ball has made contact with the bat or the hands or gloves holding it


http://www.pitchvision.com/laws-of-cric ... x-leg-byes

[Adelaide Hawk]

I hope im around to see the day where the body armour will smash the ball for sixes!

You''ve already seen it. A batsman used to use his bat for protection.

[mal]

FACING THE NEXT BALL

I dont understand this rule, and need clarification
A batsman lofts a ball and is caught
The batsman cross b4 the catch is completed


?
Becoz they have crossed the non striker faces the next ball
Im thinking given any disMissAL that the incoming batsman should face the next ball
The only exemption to this rule is perhaps a run out

[Trader]

FACING THE NEXT BALL

I dont understand this rule, and need clarification
A batsman lofts a ball and is caught
The batsman cross b4 the catch is completed


?
Becoz they have crossed the non striker faces the next ball
Im thinking given any disMissAL that the incoming batsman should face the next ball
The only exemption to this rule is perhaps a run out

Disagree.

In all dismissals, the incoming batsmen replaces the outgoing batsmen at the end they were at when the dismissal took place, simple as that.

[Media Park]

The review system, or lack thereof.

It hasn't been terrible for the Indian series, with umpires double checking when they feel it necessary, however it seems to be weighted in favour of the Indians.

All or freaking nothing.

[NFC]

Fieldsman who hits the stump with his return
Overthrows as the fielders backing up are outa position

Should be a Dead Ball ?

Agreed!!!

You're getting penalised for a skill. No overthrows when the throw hits the stumps.

[Lightning McQueen]

Excessive throwing the ball back to the keeper peeves me no end, I love it when they miss the keeper and it cost runs, even if it is the side I'm barracking for, should be outlawed, even the Windies in their hey day got 15 overs in per hour, lucky to get 13 nowadays.

[Jim05]

Excessive throwing the ball back to the keeper peeves me no end, I love it when they miss the keeper and it cost runs, even if it is the side I'm barracking for, should be outlawed, even the Windies in their hey day got 15 overs in per hour, lucky to get 13 nowadays.

Yep agree.
Whats worse especially at club cricket is keepers who ping at the stumps all day trying to get a stumping. In last weeks match i reckon the guy had 20 cracks at the stumps, i was umpiring at the time and had to set the stumps up about a dozen times, none of the chances were even close

[Lightning McQueen]

Excessive throwing the ball back to the keeper peeves me no end, I love it when they miss the keeper and it cost runs, even if it is the side I'm barracking for, should be outlawed, even the Windies in their hey day got 15 overs in per hour, lucky to get 13 nowadays.

Yep agree.
Whats worse especially at club cricket is keepers who ping at the stumps all day trying to get a stumping. In last weeks match i reckon the guy had 20 cracks at the stumps, i was umpiring at the time and had to set the stumps up about a dozen times, none of the chances were even close

I'm hearing you, if they keep appealing for them I start getting a bit cranky and tell them they'll ruin it for when the chance does happen to be out.

[mal]

[quote="jackpot jim"]I think one rule that should be changed is OUTLAWING the use of runners for batsmen.
It's one of those GENTLEMANLY rules imo from way back but i think it's totally unnecessary these days.
Think about it, a bowler breaks down, the fielding team is one bowler short, a batsman breaks down, he can use a runner. Not really fair i would've thought.[/quote


___________________________________________________________________________________________________

NostraJackpotJimadamus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just for the record
Watson and Johnson both played on with injuries in South Africa
Both batted without runners
Both have endured long term injuries ever since

This is why I have to disagree with this no runner policy
Will it lead to more injuries as a result ?