Transcription: A picture of a bat leaning against some stumps. Superimposed on it is a Tweet from Iceland Cricket: “Name a rule in cricket that should be changed immediately. Why?”

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh interesting. I’ve never seen that suggested before. What I have seen is that after you do a coin toss for game 1 of a series, you alternate on subsequent games. Might achieve a similar result, without being quite so extreme.

  • mutant_zz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    You shouldn’t be run out at the non-strikers end if the batter hits it and it deflects off the bowler or other fielder. The bowler/fielder should have to have a degree of control for it to count as a run out, which could just be changing the trajectory of the ball slightly. But putting your hand out and grazing a finger is not enough

    • _thisdot@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Degree of control is too hard to define. You should take away keeper catches where the ball doesn’t deviate too much either in that case

      • mutant_zz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You already have to have a degree of control to complete a catch (which is nothing to do with how much the ball deviates off the bat).

        Umpires already have to make a lot of judgement calls in cricket. This would be no different.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    I saw this on the Cricket Australia Facebook page. The comments over there are not very good. Some just blatantly bad ideas (first one I saw: “No more leg byes! You should have to hit the ball to score runs, not miss it.”) some that are not actually suggesting changes to the laws of cricket (“Mankad completely legal and regarded as a legitimate tactic of the game”).

    Can we do better?

  • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Not sure which rule it would be, but I think back to the 2019 World Cup final, and that ball that hit the bat of Ben Stokes as he dived to get safely back into his wicket.

    Not only did he get there, but the ball went for 4, and given the extremely close result and the lateness of that over, it might have made all the difference.

    Not sure what you would need to change it to, but it seemed very unfair to me that England got those runs.

    • Krankite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Got me thinking, they could get rid of all boundaries that aren’t off the bat, would get rid of all the tedious replays where we are watching to see if the field erv touched the rope or not. Same for over throws the only get the extras for what they can run.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Upvote for the bold take, but personally I don’t agree. As far as I’m concerned, as long as there’s no insinuation that he did it deliberately, that’s just how the game goes. It’s no different from if the throw had gone wide due to a bad throw, or poor catching from the keeper.

      • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Fair enough, but I do think it’s different when it benefits the person it hits.

        It would be a tough one to rework though I think. And hands up, I like cricket, but I’m a relatively recent convert and I don’t want it all that often, so my opinion probably doesn’t carry much weight! :-)

  • vividspecter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago
    • LBW tweaks like removing the “playing a shot when pitching outside off” option
    • Maybe something to minimise leg side bouncers and the like in test cricket, which can get a bit boring.
  • 50MYT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Legit answer.

    Some of the duck worth rules in regards to rain delay etc.

    When a team wins from that because of rain when they had no chance of doing it with food weather is dumb.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Interesting. So do you think the DLS algorithm is too friendly to late-order batsmen’s scoring ability?

  • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t like t20 much but if it must exist :

    • it should be red ball. Far too easy for batsmen. Designed for uneducated crowds
    • there needs to be some more restrictions on playing for franchises. Blatant money grab, with the same 20 players floating around the Bash, the Blast and the IPL . Very cynical.
    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      the same 20 players floating around the Bash, the Blast and the IPL

      Personally I don’t care so much about that, but I hate even the appearance that any form of T20 might take priority over Test cricket for any players or teams. I don’t know how you would deal with that, but it was a vocal problem in the lead-up to the Windies’ most recent series in Australia (although they ended up performing exceptionally well, so the concerns may have ended up unfounded—I just want even the idea that it could be a problem to go away).

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Guessing you’re a baseball fan? In cricket, “innings” is both singular and plural. And games have a maximum of 2 innings per side.