My new and hypothetical rules for cricket

Without spending too much time restating the obvious, the recent events in South Africa have focused the minds of many on actual and perceived ills and issues with the game of cricket.

Now everyone appears more focused with ball tampering, player behaviour, adequacy and fairness of sanctions issued by governing bodies, and (if you can indulge me some editorial license) the rapacious nature of the news cycle.

If we also factor in the New Zealand versus England series, we can include other matters like ground conditions, weather and light.

Plenty of energy has been expended by all stakeholders in identifying, ruminating, arguing, and pontificating on these issues.

Stakeholders have wept, frothed, twitched, scratched and wondered – all with the genuine interest in making the game a more satisfying activity to be associated with.

We can spend up to five days engaged with a single match, so why shouldn’t we try and make it as comfortable a place to be as possible?

What follows is not to be regarded as a panacea to all the games irritations. The underlying consideration is to recognize that a game of cricket involves a massive amount of individual transactions.

The logic applied is to make a proportion of those transactions more palatable and engaging as well as to promote a fair contest between the physical, intellectual and emotional talents on display.

My suggestion: allow the fielding team the use of two balls during an innings.

Some ground rules first:

• Fielding side can switch between the two balls as they see fit – with one caveat, they cannot change the ball during an over.
• One or both balls can be replaced by new balls at the end of 100 overs at the fielding team’s discretion.
• Damaged balls can be replaced as per the current rules.
• Umpire holds the ball not in use.
• Batting team is alerted when balls are changed.

[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]

Clearly, a harder and shinier ball is an advantage at the commencement of an innings. By switching between balls, this advantage lasts for a longer period of time.

However, the fielding captain may not necessarily elect to alternate the balls each over. Rather, he may choose to hold one ball back from use for introduction at a later time.

Such as for use against a particular batter, for use by a particular bowler returning from a spell, or if the weather has or is likely to intervene.

If the weather interferes, retain a hard ball for use on the resumption of play so that it is less affected by moisture on the playing surface.

He might prefer a deteriorating ball to best exploit a deteriorating pitch or conditions conducive to reverse swing and alternate infrequently or not at all.

In the event that the fielding team loses a bowler to injury, they may elect to switch to the other ball better suited to a part-timer called into the action.

These tactical opportunities are not limited to the fielding team though. A harder ball may promote more scoring opportunities for the batting team so an astute captain can take a number of consequences into consideration before alternating the ball in use at any time.

From the audience’s point of view, this will introduce a new level of speculation and discussion.

As an aside, a significant collateral benefit would be that it gives the commentators more to talk about.

More ‘how does he manage the balls?’ Less ‘what’s your favourite pizza, where did you get that shirt?’ ‘Back in my day…’ And that has to be a good thing!

One great risk is the potential for puerile schoolboy innuendo and bad puns, but that will not be limited to the commentary booth.

I hope that it also reduces the temptation to tamper with the condition of the ball.

But to be safe, the ICC should introduce more robust penalties for ball tampering (minimum three games for the culprit and captain).

In any event, surely the temptation to act outside of the laws of the game is reduced if you are provided with more opportunities to be competitive and act within the rules.

I believe that this innovation could introduce a new level of tactical approach and audience engagement.

Roarers, what are your thoughts? Just putting it out there.