The Big Bash is taking drastic measures to return games to a three-hour maximum duration with a bizarre new rule proposed to speed up play.
Last summer incoming batters were supposed to be ready to face up in 60 seconds but no penalties were handed out when the rule was broken.
As a result, a bowler would be able to start bowling after 75 seconds even if the new batter isn’t ready to face.
Under the proposal, the timed-out laws would be tweaked so that a new batter can’t be timed out but would have to stand aside and watch the bowler try and hit the stumps if they weren’t ready in time.
The bowler would get one shot at hitting the stumps. If they miss, the batter stays. If they hit, the batter is sent packing before they’ve even faced a ball.
It would be a diamond duck, but not as we know it.
All forms of men’s cricket have struggled with slow over rates, but the Big Bash is firmly in the sights of Cricket Australia who want to ensure the pace of play is kept up and families can go to the games knowing exactly how long they will run.
The proposed rules will be put to players in the coming days.
If it’s adopted the Big Bash, as well as the Women’s Big Bash, would look very different this summer.
A range of other time-saving measures are also being looked at including bowling multiple overs from one end and limiting drink intervals and equipment changes on-field.
“We know Big Bash fans want to watch fast-paced, exciting cricket on TV and in the stadium,” CA General Manager of BBL Alistair Dobson told cricket.com.au
“We have spent the off-season looking at ways to keep the game moving and are close to finalising what this might look like.”
“We’re really mindful of the length of games. Our data shows they’ve started to lengthen more than we’d probably like in the last couple of years and that’s something we’re looking at closely in terms of what options we’ve got.”
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
I've been mulling this over, and it just gets more stupid. I assume the bowler is aiming for the non-striker's stumps. Are they throwing from their run-up point? Spinners have a big advantage, but presumably pace bowlers will have a new run-up point a metre from the stumps. Nothing in the rules to stop that. And does this mean the batter can only score a four or a six? They can't run for anything, because the other batter can't make it to their end. Plus, what if the batters have changed ends but the wicket on the previous delivery was off a front foot no-ball (out via run-out). The new absent batter couldn't be bowled out or stumped as things stand. The delivery would need to be fielded (by keeper or otherwise), and the stumping be recorded as a run-out. AND what if the bowler delivers what would have been a beamer or a too high bouncer to the absent batter? Does height matter if the batter is not present for it to be measurable? These scenarios may seem ridiculous, but they stem from a ridiculous rule. I wrote an April Fool's article that didn't get printed about playing an indoor cricket-inspired mini game to make up for any broadcast time lost if a second innings didn't make it the full 20 overs (they played for the 'Pressure Point'). Obviously, I underestimated the CA's creativity.
Ruairidh MacDonald
Roar Rookie
It's ironic, but with all these bizarre ideas CA is actually the only cricketing body treating t20s as their originally were intended to be: pure irrelevant entertainment. Does anyone else remember the very first t20s, with the players joking around and having a laugh? We're coming back round to that, only now it's the administrators doing the joking around
josh
Roar Rookie
Everyone complaining about this rule is wrong to begin with. Because real cricket is single wicket cricket, everything thereafter is a made up contrivance.
josh
Roar Rookie
THE MCC Laws do allow for variations to rules under agreement of associations and captains.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
It was an option in the 100. It didn't make any difference from my perspective. I was surprised
Ian_
Roar Rookie
I predict this rule will never be enforced
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"Under the proposal, the timed-out laws would be tweaked so that a new batter can’t be timed out but would have to stand aside and watch the bowler try and hit the stumps if they weren’t ready in time." Oh FFS.
Ian
Roar Rookie
If only the umpires would take back control of the game, most of the problems would be solved. The average time a batsman (sorry Batter!) spends in the middle would be less than 30 minutes. Why do they need drinks breaks at all?
Rellum
Roar Guru
Well the ump should say to bad mate, deal with it.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Yeah, what’ll happen - wicket falls, batsman ‘runs out’ to be on time, end of over he calls for a drink or that he brought wrong thing cause he was rushing and ‘a break’ happens.
Ian
Roar Rookie
Why not have a golf buggy drive the Batsman ( sorry Batters ) to the wicket.That'd save some time. They could call it the Batter Mobile...The kids would love it!
Rellum
Roar Guru
Flat no to any suggestion of bowling overs without changing ends. That makes the game competely different, and really aporoaching backyard cricket.
Rellum
Roar Guru
And you should only need one pair of gloves to bat for an hour.
Ian
Roar Rookie
The only one they should concentrate on is limiting the drinks breaks and equipment changes. Never mind limiting them, ban them. If the players can't bat, bowl or field for 20 overs without having 3-4 drinks breaks they shouldn't be out there. The rest of it is just a complete joke.
The PTA has disbanded
Guest
A range of other time-saving measures are also being looked at including bowling multiple overs As did this bizarre passage...
The PTA has disbanded
Guest
Surely this rule flirts dangerously close with not being able to sanction this game as an ICC/MCC approved T20 match? It has to be a joke...
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
It does have a bit of an April 1 feel about it.
JGK
Roar Guru
This is a joke right?