Enough of rule changes, I imagine you mumble as you eat your cereal, laptop on the dining table browsing The Roar. But please, hear me out.
A batsman is out – bowled, caught, stumped, lbw whatever – and is sadly returning to the dressing room. But wait a moment, the umpire has made a signal to the TV umpire. Was it a no-ball?
After several replays we are informed that it was a no-ball, as the back of the bowler’s front foot was not behind the popping crease. The relieved batsman returns, not believing his good luck as the bowler stomps his guilty foot in disgust.
This happens once or twice a day. The no-ball rule states that a part of the bowler’s front foot must be behind the popping crease. Even touching the popping crease is not good enough.
This makes the umpire’s job extremely difficult. Remember, he has so many things to do; giving lbw and other hair-line decisions. Unless the bowler trespasses the popping crease by a few centimetres, human eye cannot notice for sure whether the back of the bowler’s front foot had landed behind the popping crease.
What’s the solution? Here is my suggestion:
Draw a parallel line 28 cms in front of the popping crease. It should have a metal-magnetic strip and thus be called the met-mag crease.
The moment the bowler’s front foot touches this met-mag crease, there is an audible “ting” sound, as in tennis.
To be honest, I am ignorant as to how this is to be achieved but if it can be done in tennis, it can be done in cricket. I suggest Channel Nine, Fox Sports, Cricket Australia and the ICC have a look at my revolutionary (or crazy) idea and consult tennis authorities as to whether this is possible and, if so, how to go about it.
With new and amazing electronic technologies (snicko-metre, hawke-eye, etc.) now available, this should be experimented with. It is not an airy-fairy idea.
If we have stump-cam in all internationals and stumps which appear to go in flames in BBL matches, why not a metallic-magnetic line 28cms ahead of the popping crease which goes “ting” every time the front of a bowler’s front shoe (also laced with met-mag) touches it?
And what a heaven for umpires as also to the batsmen! The moment the batsman hears the “ting” sound he jumps out to hit it, knowing it is a no-ball without waiting for the umpire’s signal (which could be too late for the batsman to react).
Another rule change as suggested by me:
By the current rule, a batsman is not given out if the ball is pitched outside the leg stump, even if the ball would have hit the stumps but for the pad.
If this is clearly outside the leg stump, the umpire is able to judge it and gives the batsman not out for lbw. But if it is a matter of few millimetres outside the leg stump, how can an umpire know for sure? This means another referral to the TV umpire and another waste of minutes.
The TV ump has the advantage of an imaginary shaded area between the stumps; off-stump on one end to the on-stump on the other end and the other way round.
My suggestion is: why not have such two vertical lines on the pitch to aid the on-field ump?
(I realise this might be distracting for the batsmen – too many lines!)
But if an umpire thinks the ball would have hit the stumps if it had not hit the pad first, why not give the batsman out even if it had landed outside the leg stump? Who started this illogical rule in the first place and why are we continuing with it?
At the media dinner on Saturday (the third day of the Sydney Test), I asked some cricket journalists on this ruling, namely a batsman cannot be declared out lbw if the ball had landed outside the leg stump even though it would have hit the stumps, and the consensus of opinion was that it was a stupid rule and should be scrapped.
What do you say; Spiro, David Lord … and other Roarers?
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Tim, My thoughts exactly. Roarer friends, Thank you all very much for this lively debate with many interesting points raised and suggestions. I hope to take these suggestions to cricket commentators and Cricket Australia. If something transpires, credit will go to the Roar and all of us.
Tim
Guest
With LBWs I think that if the ball is clearly going to hit the stumps when it hits the pad it should be out even if it is pitched too far to leg or off side.
Johnno
Guest
Atawahai drive it seems you and many others are a rather conservative lot , and highly tradionislist when it comes to test cricket. Test cricket, and one tennis tournament a year are hardly the majority of market share in pro sport in the world, get a grip. 2 teams wearing the same uniform are hardly the majority, no wonder test cricket has problems, it has too many fans like you and some others not all but some others, stuck in a time-warp . I call it the baby boomer generation, that will all fade away into the insignificance that it is within 20 years. So you can enjoy your whites, and your other so called traditionalist quirks . But up in heaven not on earth, which is where the baby boomer generation will be, and generation X,Y, and Z, will make life on earth more exciting , unlike dull sections of the baby boomer generation. And one way to funk it up is to make test cricket more funky, and exciting , and mainstream and more modern ,not traditional.
Atko
Guest
While the flashing stumps makes things easier, you're still limited by the amount of frames per second the camera records in. I'm with you Justin Ware, I've thought of it myself. My guess is it's a cost thing and the television stations probably want controversial calls for ratings.
Bri Olewale
Guest
agree we need to think of putting in place incentives for the bowlers too maybe changing that LBW rule could be a good start
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Nurse! He's out of bed again!
Johnno
Guest
Russ , wimbeldon okay. And that is like 1 pro sports tournament in like how many in the World,. And test cricket, and wimbledon are both English with all this oldie world stuff. So if 1 tournament is all you got , then Russ tradiotinlists are in the extreme minority in pro sport. And baseball at the MLB level anyway all have there own individual uniforms anyway. They may have nearly all white uniforms , but they are still completely separate designs, just as in rugby, soccer, basketball etc. And they all , the MLB teams have alternate strips, where if the strips are similar the team will wear the alternate one in baseball. So it shows once agains how much of a minority, Test cricket, and the wimbledon tennis tournament are Russ in 2012.
Russ
Guest
Wimbledon tennis. For much the same reason. Many old-school baseball teams still play in white, or nearly all white. Test cricket in colour doesn't need to mean ODI cricket pyjamas. I could deal with a little green as on the Shield sides or the sweaters.
Johnno
Guest
Yes Farmerj, it's called making test cricket more exciting, and appekaing to a wider audiences, and providing actual real incentives for attacking and bold pay. And I said only in the 1st 15 overs of an innings, why not trial these ideas . And Slats is like 30 plus years young than Bill Lawry, Slats was only finished in 2001, compared to Bill Lawry whose last test was 1971. A 30 year difference there. And I sam saying it's not about slats, but i want younger commentators on 9. Bill lawry was long retired before even world series cricket came in he will be 76 this year, hardly a young man. And yes i am bored of white clothing, you tell me farmer j, what other sport can you think of where both teams wear the same uniform, I can't think of 1.
Farmerj
Guest
Surely this is a piddle take? Getting wickets back? Bored of white clothing? Canning the great Bill lawry for 'Slats" Nah must be a joke
matt h
Guest
There are actually a few good points in there. I'm no fan of bonuses for slogging or power plays, but most of the rest is strangely ok. Why are white clothes so bloody important? Why not bigger penalties for slow over rates? Is there any other team sport that does not allow subs? Why not day night cricket? And are we really able to defend the 9 commentary team? On the actual article. I think the LBW rule change is interesting but would have to be thought out clearly. You could end up with a stacked onside field and left arm spinners darting it in at the legs all day. Very negative cricket. The best rule change for mine would be to open up ODI and T20 cricket to all nations. Sure you can keep precious tests between only the top tier (although it should be made a little easier to get in - i.e. Ireland, Netherlands, Afghanistan and Scotland), but for the others why can't the qualifications be more like football? Regionaly qualifiers for the world cup, etc.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Kersi, I think the idea of some sort of electronic sensing of no-balls is great. A couple of hair thin lines down the pitch might be OK too as long as the lines don't damage the pitch or alter the movement of the ball. As for the leg-side LBW rule, keep it as it is or maybe allow for the ball to pitch no more than 10cm outside leg stump.
Farmerj
Guest
Either do away with the toss and let the visiting team just choose what they want to do or have the toss but do not name the 12th man until after the decision to bat or bowl has been made.
Dadiggle
Guest
Wonder if they make ball tampering legal if the Pakistan bowlers will get exactly the same movement and swing with a cricket ball than they get now....
langou
Roar Guru
All these ideas benifit pace bowlers only
deccas
Guest
Johno stop trolling.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I agree but using 5/40 was just an example. You could have a team at 2/230 after 60 overs and decide to use to try and get a break through, particularly if the pitch isn't spinning much and/or your spinner isn't having a great day.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I think the numbers of overs being bowled goes hand in hand with the game moving. It's a little bit better in ODI's as a slow over rate means that you have fewer overs in your innings (doesn't effect the team bowling second though) so there's a real incentive to get through them. The players can get through overs a lot more quickly than they currently do but they need an incentive to do so. I'm not a fan of the extra half hour either but it does show how big of a prolem it is when they give them that extra half an hour and they still can't get through the required overs While rain does effect cricket more than most other sports (tennis would be another one) they don't help themselves with some of the rules. There's nothing more frustrating sitting through a 1hr+ rain delay which is nothing more than a light sprinkle.
Brian
Guest
The problem is when your playing a game for 5 days yo need a contest if a team is 5/40 after an hour its a bit of a problem if we help the bowling team. Take the recent MCG Test or the SA v NZ game. Its hard enough to watch (knowing who will win) without giving the better team more options.
Russ
Guest
I don't mind how many overs are bowled, provided the game is moving. Excessive patting down of the pitch, chat and field changes are what kills time. And a long runup that reduces the number of balls bowled is generally more interesting than watching a part-time spinner race through a few overs. I'm also not the greatest fan of catching up overs at the end of the day. I like to be there for stumps, but when you've been at the ground for 8+ hours, and play continues it is a bit much. Agree completely about the rain though. Particularly in Melbourne where you might get a light drizzle for 2-3 hours that is perfectly playable, if only the play had started. Also annoying are the short showers; 5 minutes of heavy rain that passes before the covers are even in place leads to 30min of delays. We have weather radars to see the rain pattern. If it isn't very heavy or persistent, just pause play, lay the hessian and get back on.