SA Footy

I've always reckoned the rule allowing a batsman to use a runner is stupid and unfair and it's about time it was canned.

If you're not fit to fully perform the role of a batsman then you should retire hurt. Alternatively, take your chances at the crease in holding up an end and try to hit boundaries. Otherwise get off the ground!

The runner is always at the ready to sprint off for a run and unlike the batsman, doesn't have to contend with the pressures of actually taking strike e.g being forced to fend off short deliveries etc. It's not a fair substitution.

It also ads unnecessary complexities to the game which can sometimes create confusion e.g. runners standing out of their ground while the striker is in his, running from wide out at square leg etc.

It's a stupid rule the game doesn't need.

You make a good point. It is a bit of an anomaly. A bowler doesn't get a replacement....
It is a batsman's game though. lol

westozfalcon wrote:I've always reckoned the rule allowing a batsman to use a runner is stupid and unfair and it's about time it was canned.

If you're not fit to fully perform the role of a batsman then you should retire hurt. Alternatively, take your chances at the crease in holding up an end and try to hit boundaries. Otherwise get off the ground!

The runner is always at the ready to sprint off for a run and unlike the batsman, doesn't have to contend with the pressures of actually taking strike e.g being forced to fend off short deliveries etc. It's not a fair substitution.

It also ads unnecessary complexities to the game which can sometimes create confusion e.g. runners standing out of their ground while the striker is in his, running from wide out at square leg etc.

It's a stupid rule the game doesn't need.

totally agree

I actually have a bigger issue with "ring ins" being able to be used as substitute fieldsmen.

I do agree WestOz with the point you've made, but I would imagine the traditionalists would argue that prior to the 1st ball being bowled the rule is the same for both teams.

Perhaps if they need a runner they should bat at number 11 ?

Dale Steyn had a runner batting for Sth Africa, then opened the bowling?!! Strange.

Chris Gayle
broken thumb
pulled hamstring
batted 11
with a runner
and then took 2 blinders at slip when he fieded after


As for Steyn that is absolutely ridicoulous how he can bat with a runner and then
bowl and crunch the West Indies with a 19.5 overs 4/44
Not even one the worlds most lethal bowler should be afforded that sort of luxury

Runnerfatugger always used to get a runner, as he was too lazy to run..Used to piss the Aussies off no end...

mal wrote:
As for Steyn that is absolutely ridicoulous how he can bat with a runner and then
bowl and crunch the West Indies with a 19.5 overs 4/44
Not even one the worlds most lethal bowler should be afforded that sort of luxury

Yep spot on Mal. That's where the ICC should send out a message to all umpires saying next time he's asking for a runner, just simply say "no". Doing things like that will eliminate players having runners for "fake" injuries. The question could be asked - was he resting so he could open the bowling?

Totally Agree with Westozfalcon on this one.
The Runner for Injured batsman Rule is well past its use by Date.
Cricket Has always been Known as a Gentlemans' sport and the Runner Rule is one of those Gentlemanly Rules that have been around from the Beginning.
Their Have been plenty of Law changes to Cricket over the Years which Hasn't Really altered the Tradition of the Game and Scrapping this one wouldn't either IMO.
Injured Bowlers Cant have a substitute or Any Help SO why should Batsmen ???

Personally ive Rejected having a Runner a number of times for myself as i dont think its Fair But one Day i Did when I pulled a muscle on a stinking Hot Day and went onto make a large Score which I dont think i would have made if i had to do all the Running myself as i would have been far too stuffed considering my age and Extreme lack of Fitness at the time.

Conclusion - SCRAP IT

The Darryl Steyn situation in using a Runner and then Bowling is one of the Most Absurd Mis-uses of this Rule Ever.

A good point was made about the batsmen with a runner who has to fend of the short pitched ball yet his runner is already on the move.
Technology has shown how much difference a direct hit makes in a run-out situation. This would also make a huge difference in the example i gave giving the runner a whole extra metre or two between the wicket. Especially in one day games where every run is vital add to that the advantage the non-striker gets now its ridiculous.

whufc wrote:A good point was made about the batsmen with a runner who has to fend of the short pitched ball yet his runner is already on the move.
Technology has shown how much difference a direct hit makes in a run-out situation. This would also make a huge difference in the example i gave giving the runner a whole extra metre or two between the wicket. Especially in one day games where every run is vital add to that the advantage the non-striker gets now its ridiculous.

I have not read them all
But in your 212 posts on SAFOOTY this would be your finest intellectual contributions.
You are 1,2563,098,675,007,887,000 % right on this post

never worried about a runner, you are given a bat, there are boundaries, so you dont have to run