The Rule you most hate in cricket

[Hooper]

Probably because it leads to some bizzare results. And it disadvantages one team sometimes.

 

[The Matt]

its not a rule as such, but i got warned twice for it:

we were batting 2nd (out of 2) and i was in bat and after playing my shot, i happened to run down the middle of the pitch. i didnt realise i was doing it until the grumpy umpy told me i was. i got a warning, a little later i did near enough the same thing. warned again. to be fair i was out about 2 balls later but i thought, i'm batting @ 8 and there are only a few wickets left in the game. if we were batting first, i would have accepted that i may have been trying to gain an advantage when we bowl, but the fact that we were batting second really peeved me

basically, i think common sense should prevail there if the team is batting second

Except that's going to tear up the pitches and make maintain a decent strip a hell of a lot harder than need be the case.

Bowlers being cautioned for running on the pitch. THEY DON'T DO IT ON PURPOSE!

Oh, and I wish umpire's would be less strict on wides for spinners in ODIs that pitch in line and turn past leg stump.

On one hand, whether or not its intention, it would lead to the same problem as batsmen being allowed to run on the pitch - extra deterioration of the conditions of the pitch, and extra difficulty in maintenance.

On the other hand, some bowlers certainly do it on purpose, and determining whether an individual bowler is doing so, or whether they're just dopey would be almost impossible for an umpire.

Finally, you normally get at least one, if not two warnings before the umpire actually levies any punishment against you - if you can't stop after two warnings, you probably deserve to be given a spell...

The current law on chucking. It's an absolute mess & can only ever be applied retrospectively.

Shabbir Ahmed was found to be exceeding the permitted degree of flexion when he helped to bowl England out in the first test of 2006/7 tour & duly banned for 12 months, but the result still stands!

The trouble is the technology to accurately judge the degree of a bowler's elbow flexion doesn't yet exist &, in the current climate, no umpire who has any long term ambitions to stay in the game is going to no-ball anyone for it.

Absolutely agree - this would be close to the rule that most annoys me.

 

[angryangy]

Bad light offered in test matches in ground where there is floodlights.

Put simply, floodlights ≠ sunlight. That's why ODI balls are white.

 

[The Matt]

The rule that most annoys me is actually a few rules relating to where a bowler CAN'T bowl in one-day cricket. The corridor in which a legitimate ball can land is too narrow, and with short-pitched bowling also totally forbidden, it leaves bowlers with very little scope to vary things to avoid a pasting.

LBWs for balls pitching out-side off, regardless of a shot attempt, should be out (provided of course the ball would hit the stumps) - for ODIs and Tests. The "boundary" on the leg side within which balls can travel without it being called "wide" in ODIs should be about 10 inches further to the leg. And bowlers should be allowed 2 bouncers per over.

Make it a better balanced contest between bat and ball.

OR

Alternatively, the weakness of sanctions for teams failing to get through their overs in their allotted time really annoys me. Its not hard. Players and captains should be copping suspensions, and teams should be docked runs in ODIs. Its the only way they'll actually make an effort to address this blight on the game.

 

[PhilD123]

If the game is close, then they should play into the next day if that day is available. Especially in cup matches and International matches. Give everyone free admission for the next day, you will see a good attendance still.

Did you watch the FPT Final? It turned into an absolute farce on the 2nd day. Durham and their fans had travelled a long way down to London and a lot of them had transport waiting for them on the Saturday night. There wasn't many of their fans at Lords on the Sunday, which was a shame considering it was their first trophy. The 2nd day is an anti climax and takes away the magic of the game.

The rule I hate most is this silly umpire referral thing they tried in the Friends Provident trophythis season, I hope it never sees the light of day again. If the umpire sticks his finger up, you are out, no arguments.

Yep and it won't work because the on field umpire has to make a really terrible decision for the third umpire to even consider changing it.

I'm not too keen on the ruling for bowlers getting punished for supposedly "over celebrating", it's not doing anything or anyone any harm.

 

[angryangy]

LBWs for balls pitching out-side off, regardless of a shot attempt, should be out (provided of course the ball would hit the stumps) - for ODIs and Tests.

The laws do allow for balls pitching outside off to be given lbw, regardless of shot played. What they protect against is the ball hitting the batsman outside the line of the stumps. I think this is fair. The kinds of things that bring that part of the law into the game are Shane Warne bowling on the fourth day into the rough around the wicket to the left handers. The batsman is expecting that trajectory and so he should be playing at that line as much as possible.

You also want the laws to give added value to playing the ball, because that's cricket.

 

[CortezTheKiller]

The laws do allow for balls pitching outside off to be given lbw, regardless of shot played. What they protect against is the ball hitting the batsman outside the line of the stumps. I think this is fair. The kinds of things that bring that part of the law into the game are Shane Warne bowling on the fourth day into the rough around the wicket to the left handers. The batsman is expecting that trajectory and so he should be playing at that line as much as possible.

You also want the laws to give added value to playing the ball, because that's cricket.

Yeah, I agree. Provided, of course, a batsman is actually playing at the ball rather than just padding-up with his bat safely tucked behind his pad to just make it seem like he's playing a shot. When batters try this I've no objections to them being given LBW, regardless of being struck outside the line.

 

[legspinner@fred]

Did you watch the FPT Final? It turned into an absolute farce on the 2nd day. Durham and their fans had travelled a long way down to London and a lot of them had transport waiting for them on the Saturday night. There wasn't many of their fans at Lords on the Sunday, which was a shame considering it was their first trophy. The 2nd day is an anti climax and takes away the magic of the game.

Note that wolfy say's 'If it's close' that game was not close, Hampshire had 5 wickets left to get 150 off 20 overs, so i'd be in favour of a regulation that meant that if you are more than 80 runs off the D/L par when the rain comes, and you are 5 wickets down, that's it, game over.

 

[Annoyingdevil]

I really hate the catch out rule
I hate That rule I just don't like getting catch out.

 

[Hooper]

Catch out? You mean, getting "Caught"?

...God help me.

 

[wolf]

Note that wolfy say's 'If it's close' that game was not close, Hampshire had 5 wickets left to get 150 off 20 overs, so i'd be in favour of a regulation that meant that if you are more than 80 runs off the D/L par when the rain comes, and you are 5 wickets down, that's it, game over.

Exactly. If the match is in the balance, go into a reserve day. If it is not, then finish it there with the D/L.

 

[Monty57]

I find it strange how people are complaining about the D-L i think it use to be more unfair when a team need 150 of 1 ball -dont you?

 

[legspinner@fred]

Nothing wrong with D/L, it's a clever method to decide a game of sport interrupted by rain.

 

[sd92]

Bad light is a rubbish rule.

LBW is messed up at times.

Umpires should also be allowed to use more technology.

 

[PhilD123]

Exactly. If the match is in the balance, go into a reserve day. If it is not, then finish it there with the D/L.

And how exactly do you determine whether its a close match? If it has to be a captain's agreement, then I couldn't of seen Shane Warne surrendering the FPT Final at 177-5 overnight. 2nd day is a farce, as other people have said, it's a One Day match because it takes place on one day.