Much is made of the need to preserve and protect Test cricket from an unfortunate demise at the hands of the commercial potential of short-format cricket and 21st century attention spans.
Here are three ideas which the ICC should implement to help keep the five-day format relevant in the modern sporting landscape.
1. Allow for more than just concussion subs
As viewers on Thursday were treated to the impressive spectacle of the injury-waylaid West Indies’ reserve wicket-keeper bowling medium pace to ease the burden of his fellow quicks after Marquino Mindley’s hamstring gave out, concerns about the longevity of the format were plain to see.
It must be said that Devon Thomas bowled creditably given the circumstances but after a day of Australians helping themselves to runs like proverbial pigs at a trough, there’s not a huge amount of incentive for casual, new or impartial fans to keep watching.
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch cricket on KAYO
So – given the general acceptance of the value of concussion substitutes, why couldn’t there be an equivalent measure in place to replace any player ruled out mid-match due to injury?
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
There will of course be outcry about history, tradition, unfair advantage and all the rest – but in truth these concerns have either been worked through or dismissed through the implementation of the concussion sub.
So long as the injury was confirmed by a scan and/or and independent doctor, and the proposed replacement was agreed on by captains ahead of the match (ie when they exchange team sheets), it would improve the baseline standard and ensure matches remain as competitive as they can.
This should appeal to players and most importantly help to retain the interest of the viewer. The game is better for the best players playing – this is obvious.
2. Change how LBWs are reviewed by DRS
When an LBW is reviewed by either side, the TV umpire reviews the appeal in chronological order: front foot, inside edge on video, then Snicko, then Hot Spot, then onto ball tracking. There is a delightful irony in the way the umpires request “rock and roll” from the TV director – it couldn’t be more dull if it tried.
Why? The specifics are entirely moot if the ball isn’t hitting the stumps – duh, that’s the whole premise of the dismissal. Check if the ball is hitting the stumps first and work backwards from there to avoid spending time on permutations that are often proven to be irrelevant anyway.
I don’t buy that it adds to the dramatic element of a review – I’d rather watch more actual deliveries as quickly as possible. It may be that ball tracking takes time to prepare and so checking the other elements first actually saves time, but if this is the case, surely speeding up the process is something the ICC boffins can allocate resourcing towards helping.
3. Change the way we determine a boundary
My final recommendation ties in elements from the previous two. Currently, so much time is wasted in reviewing boundary fielding efforts to determine whether at any point in a fielder’s diving action to save a ball, any other part of their person, trouser, hair, spike or general aura touches the rope (which is in fact not a rope but a large piece of triangular foam laden with advertising). The question must again be asked – why?
It has long seemed harsh and arbitrary that a fielder is punished for actively preventing the ball hitting the rope because of a trailing foot or limb and a batter is essentially rewarded for not quite hitting the ball well enough to beat the fielder.
The laws of cricket should be as such to encourage the best displays of skill in every discipline, not favour the batter by default due to some tired and archaic convention of gentlemanliness.
Marnus Labuschagne of Australia celebrates making his century. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
In my view, a boundary should only be a boundary when the ball hits or passes the rope. This provides incentive to fielders and batters alike and reduces some of the most pointless and inconsequential replays that currently exist in the game.
The rules for a six can be tweaked slightly, too. In the current rules, when a batter fails to clear the rope and is caught on the boundary, but the fielder’s shoe touches the rope, the batter is awarded six runs. This is unfair – one party has successfully executed their required skill (catching) the other has failed (clearing the rope and missing the fielder).
So, I would define a six as the ball either landing beyond the rope, or a fielder who is holding the ball landing beyond the rope, without the ball having touched the ground prior in both cases. This continues to encourage those remarkable boundary-riding feats we have seen in recent years where a fielder is able to catch and then release the ball mid-air, and creates a greater balance between the two sides.
If the rules are not designed to reward teams for successfully executing the physical skills of the game, what are they doing? I just want to watch live cricket – not replays of its minutiae.
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
Cricket was much more enjoyable prior to DRS. There, fixed...
Curmudgeon1961
Roar Rookie
Re LBW happily enough the human eye is better the current cartoon ball tracking on TV
bowledover
Roar Rookie
I actually think 3. has merit in as much as if you can put yourself between the ball and the boundary then there is a good argument you have stopped it. I dont think the other rules would improve the game though and wouldnt support.
JamesH
Roar Guru
"The specifics are entirely moot if the ball isn’t hitting the stumps" Yeah but they're also entirely moot if the player has hit the ball. I think the issue is more that the order is rigid, so even where it's fairly obvious the batter hasn't hit the ball, the third umpire has to check it anyway. Assuming the technology allows for it (and this might be the reason hawkeye comes last) I'd like to see third umpires given more discretion as to what they do first. If there's suspicion that the batter has hit the ball then by all means, check that first. If it looks like the ball was sliding down leg or going over the top, start with ball tracking. As for the boundary issue, I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference between touching the rope or touching the grass beyond the rope. It's a question of drawing the effective boundary a few centimetres further back. And what if the fielder treads on top of the rope? How is the third umpire going to be certain that the edge of their foot didn't brush the grass on the far side? That's potentially harder to call than touching the rope. I don't think there's any real benefit to this change. The injury sub is a reasonable idea though. What you would need though is some way to ensure it wasn't abused - e.g. a bowler getting subbed out when they are just sore/exhausted, making way for fresh legs. Mid-series you could rule them out for the following match, but this wouldn't be a deterrent in the final game.
DTM
Roar Rookie
I'm all for considering rule changes. However: 1 Will be abused no matter how much you try to enforce it 2 You forgot to mention the 3rd umpire's determination of where the ball pitched - this is critical in many LBW appeals. A lot of reviews are struck down for things other than whether the ball is hitting the stumps. So, I believe your proposal would slow the game down in those instances and (as others have said) the ball tracking takes time. 3 Not going to save much time and I think the current system is fine. Maybe the umpires are directed to make quicker decisions. In my view, umpires need more power to push the players along. How about for each session, the fielding team has a certain number of overs to bowl. If they reach the allotted time and these overs are not completed, play continues but the captain is removed from the ground and they play with 10 men until the overs for that session are completed. You could even take it further and say if there were still 3 overs to go at the end of the allotted time that for the first over, the captain is off, for the 2nd over, the vice captain and for the 3rd over the first bowler. Let's see how quickly they move then.
jameswm
Roar Guru
No.2 - you beat me to it - they were saying on the TV the other day that it takes a while for ball tracking to be ready, hence why the TMO says "ball tracking when ready".
JGK
Roar Guru
If there’s one thing we’ve learnt from professional team sports over the years it is that your proposed substitution rule is guaranteed to be abused.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Beware the law of unintended consequences. It's one thing for a touring squad to always have 15-17 players at the ground including spare like-for-like batsmen, keepers, pacemen and spin bowlers. But home sides have traditionally had just the bare 11. Once a match has commenced the 12th man has often gone interstate to a Shield or BBL game. Keen young locals have then filled in whenever substitute fieldsmen are required. Test players hate being 12th men, as do the best older locals. And the State and BBL teams hate being deprived of a star player who's on 12th man duty. So keeping 2-4 potential "concussion subs" at a game will prove to be very unpopular.
Liam Fallon
Roar Rookie
Hi Tempo - completely agree and am not advocating for football style substitutes that teams can abuse to freshen up an attack... but where there is demonstrable injuries that remove a player from the game, as you say, I think it's worth thinking about.
Liam Fallon
Roar Rookie
Hello mate, thanks for your comment. Obviously the potential for abuse needs to be mitigated by an impartial doctor and/or independent medical evidence... and certainly not dying on a hill, but AFL is definitely not the outlier. Football/soccer is a fairly major example where this is not the case.
Gharner
Roar Rookie
1. Concussion subs are a thing because players are forced out of the game for their own safety. Without it, players would and did often push through. Part of the fabric of Test cricket is attrition and stamina 2. Ball tracking happens last because it takes time to load 3. Under old rules, you could legally catch a ball while leaning on or even falling over the fence, so there's merit in this. The rope also artificially made scoring easier. Having said that, I don't believe it takes up that much time, you'll still be getting boundary reviews, and as Tempo mentioned, the new rule has made fielding more spectacular overall. Bigger impacts on flow - countless drinks breaks, three reviews even with all neutral umpires, and helmet impact inspections (for better or worse).
Tempo
Roar Rookie
1. Allowing general injury subs is a fundamental change to test cricket. I don't mind expanding concussion subs to allow other injury cover such as broken bones etc that are clearly demonstrable. However, fast bowlers regularly play with niggles or soreness. The ability to come back spell after spell is a big part of test cricket. Allowing a fresh cadre of fast bowlers for the second innings because the starters have a bit of a niggle is a fundamental change to the game and could reduce the role of spinners in non-Asian conditions for example. This rule would absolutely be open to abuse. 2. I don't have much of an issue with this in principle (although I think if a player is given out on the evidence of ball tracking and it's later shown that they were caught, the scoreboard should be amended to reflect this). However, it's my understanding that part of the reason for checking for an edge first is that ball tracking takes some time to align - so doing it this way around might not necessarily save that much time. 3. Regarding the boundary rules, I don't have a problem with how catches are defined - I think it's a good spectacle seeing fielders contort themselves on the boundary to save sixes or take relay catches. Keeping the ball in play is part of controlling the catch. I also think its good to reward fielders who have the skills to dispose of the ball before they touch the boundary rope.
Clear as mud
Guest
and get rid of leg byes. stupid rule.
Grand Panjandrum
Guest
1. Yes for limited overs. No for tests. The rule is open for absolute tactical abuse otherwise. 2. Fair enough. 3. This is a strange hill for you to die on. I think AFL is the outlier where the player can be outside the boundary. Almost all other sports consider the player to be an extension of the ball if touching the boundary. If the rules are not designed to reward teams for successfully executing the physical skills of the game, what are they doing? A poor sentence. If the players aren't saving boundaries in accordance with the existing rules, then they aren't executing the physical skills correctly, and the batter has bested them in that instance.