What would you change in cricket?

[Ahmad94]

Yes good idea you should chat to @vc-the-slogger about this little chestnut.

Rumour has it, that its being considered for the 2024 Olympics!!

 

[Deleted member 46200]

Since he has retired, it won't be that much time consuming.

shows how out of touch I am doh!!!

 

[Fake Passport]

I doubt it. The only bids in for 2024 are Paris and LA and it looks like one will get 24 and the other 28. That combined with the issue about wrestling and the number of sports would make it difficult I think...

 

[Ahmad94]

I doubt it. The only bids in for 2024 are Paris and LA and it looks like one will get 24 and the other 28. That combined with the issue about wrestling and the number of sports would make it difficult I think...

I understand what you're saying, but the ICC is making positive movement in getting it included. Plus, cricket doesn't need a massive infrastructure except for a pitch so it might happen, though like you said, it is unlikely.

Source

 

[Till Valhalla]

So anybody can give me link where I can read about the 12 team test structure?

 

[CerealKiller]

So anybody can give me link where I can read about the 12 team test structure?

Daniel Brettig: New Test Championship model creeps closer | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Perfect Square]

ICC to introduce new rules
ICC announced new rules f..

 

[Yash.]

ICC to introduce new rules
ICC announced new rules f..

Damn! One tip one hand! Guthka wrapper!

 

[digiosmosis]

Eliminate Duckworth Lewis Method as per its genuine rule. The team batting second always be in loss if the weather circumstances gets bad during the game.

 

[W.G. Grace]

I would eliminate the DRS. On every appeal umpire should go to 3rd Umpire so it will be fair and square to all teams.

A little to time consuming especially when Shane Watson is batting.

I've often thought DRS review system to be a bit strange. We saw it today in the ashes: the Aussies wasted their 2 reviews on correct decisions and were unable to do anything about several possible shouts later on in the innings, much to the delight of the Barmy Army! It's obviously unfair if a batsman is dismissed merely because the umpire made a critical error and made an incorrect call, just like in football when it is infuriating to see a goal be disallowed when it transpires on the replay that it was in fact a goal, but I also get that it would get tiresome if reviews were unlimited for the players but my question is this: why allow reviews into the hands of the players?

Surely, all of the technology that we have, such as hawk-eye and snicko, are able to log all of the crucial info pretty much instantaneously as the delivery is being made in real time? Even when the umpire says not out and no review is made, the television coverage will frequently show the viewers the likes of hawk-eye and the commentators will usually say 'great decision from x umpire' or occasionally, 'Oh dear, that was out: x has been very lucky there. Poor decision from the umpire.' It doesn't take them ages to get that confirmation: surely, it would not take the length of time between one delivery and the next? Therefore, why not have a third umpire meticulously watching everything on their screens and give them the power to intervene and overrule the umpire, if and only if, he has seen that an incorrect call has been made. The footage would then be transmitted to the fans back home and also to both the players and umpires on the field and the fans in the ground via the big screens. In other words, nobody ever gets away with staying on the field when they should be out, and vice versa: plus, players will be unable to continually disrupt play with a barrage of reviews and we will never have a scenario where a batsman cannot be given out by a review, even if the review would have been justified, because the fielding team is out of reviews. What is the problem with that?

 

[Perfect Square]

I've often thought DRS review system to be a bit strange. We saw it today in the ashes: the Aussies wasted their 2 reviews on correct decisions and were unable to do anything about several possible shouts later on in the innings, much to the delight of the Barmy Army! It's obviously unfair if a batsman is dismissed merely because the umpire made a critical error and made an incorrect call, just like in football when it is infuriating to see a goal be disallowed when it transpires on the replay that it was in fact a goal, but I also get that it would get tiresome if reviews were unlimited for the players but my question is this: why allow reviews into the hands of the players?

Surely, all of the technology that we have, such as hawk-eye and snicko, are able to log all of the crucial info pretty much instantaneously as the delivery is being made in real time? Even when the umpire says not out and no review is made, the television coverage will frequently show the viewers the likes of hawk-eye and the commentators will usually say 'great decision from x umpire' or occasionally, 'Oh dear, that was out: x has been very lucky there. Poor decision from the umpire.' It doesn't take them ages to get that confirmation: surely, it would not take the length of time between one delivery and the next? Therefore, why not have a third umpire meticulously watching everything on their screens and give them the power to intervene and overrule the umpire, if and only if, he has seen that an incorrect call has been made. The footage would then be transmitted to the fans back home and also to both the players and umpires on the field and the fans in the ground via the big screens. In other words, nobody ever gets away with staying on the field when they should be out, and vice versa: plus, players will be unable to continually disrupt play with a barrage of reviews and we will never have a scenario where a batsman cannot be given out by a review, even if the review would have been justified, because the fielding team is out of reviews. What is the problem with that?

If technology is available and is necessary in cricket. Then why not use it completely?
3rd Umpire should have a live view of hawk-eye. And then if a player appeals, then 3rd umpire can tell the umpire if it's worth the shout or not. And also players won't unusually appeal on every close calls. If the appeal by a player is worthy enough the 3rd umpire can then proceed to camera angles, hawk-eye, snico meter, and hotspot. Not very time consuming and also fair and square...

 

[Deleted member 46200]

If technology is available and is necessary in cricket. Then why not use it completely?
3rd Umpire should have a live view of hawk-eye. And then if a player appeals, then 3rd umpire can tell the umpire if it's worth the shout or not. And also players won't unusually appeal on every close calls. If the appeal by a player is worthy enough the 3rd umpire can then proceed to camera angles, hawk-eye, snico meter, and hotspot. Not very time consuming and also fair and square...

I do agree, reviews are now part of the game and can be used as an event themselves meaning all the processes being played out on a big screen with atmospheric music. This can add to the excitement. Very good point about the third umpire and feel this would cut down on wasted appeals but then it is part of the gamble if it's a close call I don't feel they should loose their review.[DOUBLEPOST=1513934439][/DOUBLEPOST]*******Controversy warning************

I would love to see some mixed sex cricket. I have played this, more for fun but, could it be a workable option... ? More for domestic cricket maybe one day/T20 games.

 

[zwarrior]

I would love to see some mixed sex cricket. I have played this, more for fun but, could it be a workable option... ? More for domestic cricket maybe one day/T20 games.

Women normally play with shorter boundaries and the bowling speed will not be as high as men's cricket. So, it might be difficult to adjust for them in competitive matches. Maybe during exhibition/charity matches, this will be an excellent option.

 

[Stil]

I would create uniform/kit rules for limited overs so everyone will stop wearing those ridiculous pajama-looking outfits. The shirts can be colored, but the trousers should be white.

Also, is there anything in the rules about players being addressed as Mr. during tests? If not, that would be nice. Like at Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 46200]

I would create uniform/kit rules for limited overs so everyone will stop wearing those ridiculous pajama-looking outfits. The shirts can be colored, but the trousers should be white.

Also, is there anything in the rules about players being addressed as Mr. during tests? If not, that would be nice. Like at Wimbledon.

Or Miss (Mrs)...?

I like the colored kits.