Codify Cricket Rules better!

[Mariyam]

In the last WC, a hitherto unknown rule was used to decide on a WC winner. The # of boundaries would be the last thing on the mind of any of those playing the tie break over. Neither would any of the players actually kept a tab on that number if they actually had this rule in mind.
 

Matthews dismissal is also very freakish. There is no real way for a batsman to keep exact tab on how many seconds have elapsed since a dismissal and how much time he has left etc. a delay of a few seconds means nothing really. 
 

Point being these rules are absolutely illogical and arbitrary. We don’t want the semi final or the final this time around to be decided by some strange rule written by a Victorian viscount wearing a purple coloured wig about 150 years ago. There has to be a more logical conclusion to games and events during play.
 

ICC should revamp the rule book here and simplify the game.

[rangeelaraja]

36 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

In the last WC, a hitherto unknown rule was used to decide on a WC winner. The # of boundaries would be the last thing on the mind of any of those playing the tie break over. Neither would any of the players actually kept a tab on that number if they actually had this rule in mind.
 

Matthews dismissal is also very freakish. There is no real way for a batsman to keep exact tab on how many seconds have elapsed since a dismissal and how much time he has left etc. a delay of a few seconds means nothing really. 
 

Point being these rules are absolutely illogical and arbitrary. We don’t want the semi final or the final this time around to be decided by some strange rule written by a Victorian viscount wearing a purple coloured wig about 150 years ago. There has to be a more logical conclusion to games and events during play.
 

ICC should revamp the rule book here and simplify the game.

 

 

The simplification of the "rule-book" in cricket is an unlikely prospect.

 

Much like many contemporary high-stakes commercial sports, cricket grapples with complex legal, ethical, and moral dimensions. It involves meticulous detailing and is intertwined with a substantial body of jurisprudence.

 

If you delve into this - (https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2023/09/28/d43b480d-033b-4111-bf9c-45f9de69ef9b/ICC-Men-s-CWC23-Playing-Conditions-single-pages.pdf), you'll discover rules for virtually every conceivable aspect of the game, and even more.

 

For instance, there's a specific rule governing the removal of covers , which may seem trivial at first glance:

Quote

Quote 10.3 Removal of covers: All covers (including "hessian" or "scrim" covers used to protect the pitch against the sun) shall be removed not later than 2 ½ hours before the scheduled start of play, provided it is not raining at the time. However, if rain falls prior to the commencement of play, the pitch will be covered again.

 

What you're proposing is comparable to suggesting that because a prominent criminal defense attorney successfully utilized an uncommonly used clause in the Indian Penal Code to secure bail for a client, the entire legal system should be simplified. 

Edited November 10, 2023 by rangeelaraja

[sage]

Cricket doesn't have rules, it has laws

[rangeelaraja]

6 minutes ago, sage said:

Cricket doesn't have rules, it has laws

A law is a biding / enforceable  rule. 

[express bowling]

2 hours ago, Mariyam said:

In the last WC, a hitherto unknown rule was used to decide on a WC winner. The # of boundaries would be the last thing on the mind of any of those playing the tie break over. Neither would any of the players actually kept a tab on that number if they actually had this rule in mind.
 

Matthews dismissal is also very freakish. There is no real way for a batsman to keep exact tab on how many seconds have elapsed since a dismissal and how much time he has left etc. a delay of a few seconds means nothing really. 
 

Point being these rules are absolutely illogical and arbitrary. We don’t want the semi final or the final this time around to be decided by some strange rule written by a Victorian viscount wearing a purple coloured wig about 150 years ago. There has to be a more logical conclusion to games and events during play.
 

ICC should revamp the rule book here and simplify the game.

 

 

Absolutely !   It is the 2020s and cricket  rules which are simple, easy to interpret and easy to enforce are needed. 

 

And this  " it is in the rule book but if enforced goes against the spirit of the game " bullsh!t should be done away with too. Like the much hated and poorly named " Mankading ". 

 

If something is supposedly against the spirit of the game then why is it in the rulebook ?   In other words, those guardians of morality are saying that the cricket rule book has a lot of elements which are against the spirit of the game. 

 

So change those freaking rules then instead of fat ex-cricketers cribbing the whole day about their enforcement while gulping copious amounts of beer.

[Lord]

14 hours ago, Mariyam said:

In the last WC, a hitherto unknown rule was used to decide on a WC winner. The # of boundaries would be the last thing on the mind of any of those playing the tie break over. Neither would any of the players actually kept a tab on that number if they actually had this rule in mind.
 

Matthews dismissal is also very freakish. There is no real way for a batsman to keep exact tab on how many seconds have elapsed since a dismissal and how much time he has left etc. a delay of a few seconds means nothing really. 
 

Point being these rules are absolutely illogical and arbitrary. We don’t want the semi final or the final this time around to be decided by some strange rule written by a Victorian viscount wearing a purple coloured wig about 150 years ago. There has to be a more logical conclusion to games and events during play.
 

ICC should revamp the rule book here and simplify the game.

 

Batsman can just try to reach as early as possible. Mathews was very casual even before the strap incident. That said 2 mins is very less, should be 3 minutes atleast.

[Vijy]

13 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Absolutely !   It is the 2020s and cricket  rules which are simple, easy to interpret and easy to enforce are needed. 

 

And this  " it is in the rule book but if enforced goes against the spirit of the game " bullsh!t should be done away with too. Like the much hated and poorly named " Mankading ". 

 

If something is supposedly against the spirit of the game then why is it in the rulebook ?   In other words, those guardians of morality are saying that the cricket rule book has a lot of elements which are against the spirit of the game. 

 

So change those freaking rules then instead of fat ex-cricketers cribbing the whole day about their enforcement while gulping copious amounts of beer.

they need something to complain about, so they will not actually fix anything. typical stuff

[maniac]

22 hours ago, Mariyam said:

In the last WC, a hitherto unknown rule was used to decide on a WC winner. The # of boundaries would be the last thing on the mind of any of those playing the tie break over. Neither would any of the players actually kept a tab on that number if they actually had this rule in mind.
 

Matthews dismissal is also very freakish. There is no real way for a batsman to keep exact tab on how many seconds have elapsed since a dismissal and how much time he has left etc. a delay of a few seconds means nothing really. 
 

Point being these rules are absolutely illogical and arbitrary. We don’t want the semi final or the final this time around to be decided by some strange rule written by a Victorian viscount wearing a purple coloured wig about 150 years ago. There has to be a more logical conclusion to games and events during play.
 

ICC should revamp the rule book here and simplify the game.

Thats probably the first cricket acumen related post from you I have seen in a while and you have knocked it out of the park

[Vijy]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:42 PM, Mariyam said:

In the last WC, a hitherto unknown rule was used to decide on a WC winner. The # of boundaries would be the last thing on the mind of any of those playing the tie break over. Neither would any of the players actually kept a tab on that number if they actually had this rule in mind.
 

Matthews dismissal is also very freakish. There is no real way for a batsman to keep exact tab on how many seconds have elapsed since a dismissal and how much time he has left etc. a delay of a few seconds means nothing really. 
 

Point being these rules are absolutely illogical and arbitrary. We don’t want the semi final or the final this time around to be decided by some strange rule written by a Victorian viscount wearing a purple coloured wig about 150 years ago. There has to be a more logical conclusion to games and events during play.
 

ICC should revamp the rule book here and simplify the game.

It was actually a Georgian marquis wearing turquoise twintails.

[MediumPacer]

 

 

 

 

How is the run rate calculated???

 

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/3775004

 

 

 

Quote

 

Can Pakistan and Afghanistan make it?

Pakistan's equation to make the semi-finals after New Zealand's huge win is a near-impossible one: if they bat first, they need to win by a margin of 287 runs at least and if they are chasing, they need to dismiss England for 50 runs and chase the target in two overs or 100 runs in three overs.