Rules and regulations that would like to see implimented/discarded...

[THX_1138]

I think a pet peev of mine is the system of overstepping... being a fast bowler, no balls were my nemesis since i had a long run up (not because i am a freakin airplane screaming down a runway to lift off, but simply because i started playing cricket as a means to stay fit inbetween soccer seasons) and i saw a number of brilliant caught behinds or bowled decisions turned down because of the overstepping rule. i feel that the rule is very totalitarian... if just half an inch of your boot lands on the line, youre safe, but half an inch further down, you conceed a run, and must bowl a freebie... maybe a system of warnings for overstepping just like running down the middle of the pitch or full length balls above the waist height. another rule i would like ammended is leg byes... already they are not granted for intentional padding, but when the batsman is a git for not making contact with the ball, being struck on his pads, he has no right to sneak a run or two... and another rule that i would like to see in test matches where the pitch conditions can overwhelmingly favor the bowlers, ever 60 overs, the batting side should be permitted to request a new ball (the fielding side has the luxury every 80 overs, but on a dust bowl, lasting 60 overs against a battery of spinners deserves some reward...). this i feel would be an interesting regulation if introduced. one might argue that a batting side would not request a new ball if the fast bowlers are doing well, but as we all know, the threat for a team on a day 3 to day 5 pitch are spinners as a fast track only slows down, whereas a slow track further disintigrates into batting hell. hence, the batting side might only request a new ball if they are suffering at the hands of the spinners, but then would have to contend with the fast bowlers using a new ball rather prematurely. moreover, this would discourage teams from packing their sides with spinners or designing pitches that are not evenly balanced between the bat and bowl (any fast, the pace bowlers would wreak havoc, any slower, the spinners would be delt ineffective)...

[Predator_05]

I'd do away with the one bouncer per over rule. The bowlers need some leeway in a batsman-dominated sport.

[Zap_Brannigan]

The new free hit rule if you bowl a no-ball LBW rule - Never understood why it cant be given out if the ball pitches outside leg or if the contact was outside the line of stumps. If a ball is goin to hit the stumps then it should be out no matter what if you play with the pads. Wides in Test matches - Should be as strict as in One-dayers. Power play - No power play at all and no fielding restrictions for 20 overs.

[THX_1138]

The new free hit rule if you bowl a no-ball LBW rule - Never understood why it cant be given out if the ball pitches outside leg or if the contact was outside the line of stumps. If a ball is goin to hit the stumps then it should be out no matter what if you play with the pads. Wides in Test matches - Should be as strict as in One-dayers. Power play - No power play at all and no fielding restrictions for 20 overs.

thats interesting... actuall you are not alone with the change in the LBW rule... there is just too much room for ambiguity. however, i would not support the stricter restrains on wides... if the bowlers dont make the batsman play, then its their fault, however, i would be a lot more strict about leg side wides... there is just one reason why anyone would bowl down the legside: a negative line of attack which deserves to be punished. not so sure about the power play situation, however, i would love to see a reverse powerplay... a brief 5-10 (or two 5 over) over spell with field restrictions placed at a time and choosing of the batting side.

[jf1gp_1]

this one ian chappell suggested: if a catch is taken inside boundary and the momentum carries the fielder outside the ropes then it should be given out.

[King]

I'd do away with leg byes. If the batsman did not strike the ball why the heck should the batting team be credited with runs? I'd like to see the powerplay in ODIs spread a little better. Perhaps 10 overs at the start and 10 at the end with 3 players allowed outside the ring in both power play periods. This will ensure the batting team will have to put their heads down and ensure they save enough wickets to have a blast in the end.

[umpire]

new rule only applied to bucknor, whenever he gives wrong decision, batsman should be allowed to hit him with his bat.

[THX_1138]

this one ian chappell suggested: if a catch is taken inside boundary and the momentum carries the fielder outside the ropes then it should be given out.

or for that fact, a catch taken by a fielder who happens to be in contact with the boundary rope. for instance, in the 6th england versus india odi last year, in the infamous last over, dmitri mascarhenas hit one six that was caught brilliantly by a running piyush chawla or was it gautam gambhir (?) but as he slid after taking a spectacular catch mere inches of the ground, his leg touched the boundary and thus a wonderful effort was punished with a boundary!

[THX_1138]

new rule only applied to bucknor' date=' whenever he gives wrong decision, batsman should be allowed to hit him with his bat.[/quote'] lol... maybe a court system where the player can "object" a decision by the umpire and have it refered to a judge... and very soon there will be a supreme court of cricket responding to "no ball", "I object", "sustained... or overruled" anyways, jokes aside, i really want to get a genuine opinion here.

[The Outsider]

Leg Byes add to the "charm" of cricket, tends to take me back to a very traditional sort of era, IMO! I don't see any logic in them being there, but still like them being part of the game. What I would like to introduce in ODIs is the option of a bowler to get an extra over for each wicket he takes. That's going to make ODIs much more attacking and focussed on wicket taking and batsmen won't always be able to "see off" a 2 over spell in the middle overs from a hostile fast bowler because he won't be left with anything to bowl in the slog overs if he bowls for 4 instead of 2.

[jf1gp_1]

In ODIs when batsman take a quick single a lot of times fielders dont take a shot at the stumps because of fear of over throw. I would like to see over throws limited to 1 run. This will encourage fielders to go for those direct hits even if noone is backing basically limited damage. Give something to fielding side as well.

[amits]

1. this icl rule of challenging umpiring decisions should be implemented in intl cricket 2. powerplays changed in odis in 10 over bunches 1-10 overs - 2 fielders outside allowed 11-20 overs - 3 fielders outside allowed 21-30 overs - 4 fielders outside allowed 31-50 overs - 5 fielders outside allowed 3. ending 20/20 cricket altogether. 20/20 sucks & its not real cricket 4. having a stricter wide-ball rule in tests for balls going down the leg side. some bowlers do it deliberately & should be wided 5. if a fielder gets a direct-hit onto the stumps, the batsmen cant take overthrows 6. if a ball is caught cleanly within the boundary & the force takes the fielder outside the boundary, even then the batsman should be given out caught instead of penalising the fielding team with 6 runs

[THX_1138]

In ODIs when batsman take a quick single a lot of times fielders dont take a shot at the stumps because of fear of over throw. I would like to see over throws limited to 1 run. This will encourage fielders to go for those direct hits even if noone is backing basically limited damage. Give something to fielding side as well.

or as sunny suggested: no overthrows if the fielder is successful in knocking down the stumps. i recall this one incident, it was the first odi in the standard charterted series in south africa in 1996-1997. india were doing quite well in the first 40 overs and had restricted south africa to 160-5 before rhodes and cronje formed a 110 run partnership in the last ten overs and a significant turning point in the game was in the 41st over when cronje struck a leg glance to square leg boundary where robin singh picked up the ball on the run and knocked down the wicketkeeper's side stumps from within yards of the boundary rope... unfortunately by then both batsmen had completed 2 runs and the deflection, this time to third man boundary due to the ricochet, was picked up by jadeja who believe it or not ran in from sweeper position, picked up the ball and threw down the stumps at the wicketkeeper's end once again! unfortunately, the batsmen had completed another two complete runs and the final ricochet let them run another 2. in the end, the team conceeded 6 runs where the batsmen deserved only 2. right after that moment, the whole team lost the plot, prasad started getting walloped in the over and his econimal rate went from 3 odd to over 6 in just two overs.

[PaiN_KiLLeR]

LBW rule - Never understood why it cant be given out if the ball pitches outside leg

that rules makes perfect sense. if u have played the game at any level you would know that when a leggie bowls to you from around the wicket and pitches it outside leg stump he will hit your pads atleast twice every over even if you make all efforts to play the ball with your bat.

[THX_1138]

that rules makes perfect sense. if u have played the game at any level you would know that when a leggie bowls to you from around the wicket and pitches it outside leg stump he will hit your pads atleast twice every over even if you make all efforts to play the ball with your bat.

true... and thats one of the reasons why you cant be given lbw by a leg spinner coming around the wicket to a right handed batsman.

[Vignesh]

The new free hit rule if you bowl a no-ball LBW rule - Never understood why it cant be given out if the ball pitches outside leg or if the contact was outside the line of stumps. If a ball is goin to hit the stumps then it should be out no matter what if you play with the pads. Wides in Test matches - Should be as strict as in One-dayers. Power play - No power play at all and no fielding restrictions for 20 overs.

if the ball would hit the stumps in case the pad had not come in the way then it should be out.

[f.b.m]

true... and thats one of the reasons why you cant be given lbw by a leg spinner coming around the wicket to a right handed batsman.

It would be perfectly ok if the batsman attempts to play a shot. And I agree that "pitched outside leg" shouldnt be an excuse for them to get away from the lbws.

[Vignesh]

It would be perfectly ok if the batsman attempts to play a shot. And I agree that "pitched outside leg" shouldnt be an excuse for them to get away from the lbws.

if that is accepted as an excuse then batsmen can afford to pad deliveries...... Making watching the game a bit boring..........

[f.b.m]

Which was exactly my point.