ODI Rules

[king2be98]

Sachin Tendulkar suggested 4 innings of 25 overs recently being more equal for both sides and also perhaps more exciting viewing, but to be honest I can't see that happening. It's just too big of a change and too soon. However there are some fundamental rules which I'd like to see changed to make viewing more enjoyable. I've come up with three which would easily make the viewing more enjoyable. 1 - No restriction on how many overs yoru best bowlers can bowl, I think it's so unfair that a batsman doesn't have to walk off once he's got a 50 or a 100, but a bowler can only bowl 10 overs. I think just about every cricket pundit has made this comment and I think many pure cricket fans (not masala fans) agree with it too. The other reason for allowing a bowler unlimited overs is that you've got a more even battle between the BEST batsmen and the BEST bowlers and not some minnow and flat track bullies feeding off part timers. 2 - The bouncer above head height being called a wide and counting as the "One for the over". If a bouncer is called a wide, WHY IN THE NAME OF HOLY CHRIST, does it get counted as the one bouncer for the over. If it's an illigitemate delivery then why o why does it get counted as the one bouncer for the over? It's the most stupid rule out there, just no logic or common sense to it. 3- Bowlers being allowed 2 bouncers for the over. I felt sorry for NZ yesterday when they were bowling at the death, they only had one option, to hit the blockhole and not everyone has the accuracy of Umar Gul when it comes to hitting the blockhole, so it's very difficult to keep batsmen quiet, but I think if the bowlers are allowed to bowler 2 bouncer per over, it allows them some freedome in terms of the lines they can bowl and also keeps the batsmen guessing. It's also a lot easier for most quicks to bowl a bouncer than the blockhole. The bouncer can still be hit anywhere if a batsman can get any bat on it, but a yorker can only be blocked, squeezed or squirted out. Those are 3 simple rules all in favour of the bowling sides (I'm fed up with high scoring borefests) which I think would even out and also make the ODI format more exciting. What do you guys think and what would you suggest?

[DomainK]

Sachin Tendulkar suggested 4 innings of 25 overs recently being more equal for both sides and also perhaps more exciting viewing, but to be honest I can't see that happening. It's just too big of a change and too soon. However there are some fundamental rules which I'd like to see changed to make viewing more enjoyable. I've come up with three which would easily make the viewing more enjoyable. 1 - No restriction on how many overs yoru best bowlers can bowl, I think it's so unfair that a batsman doesn't have to walk off once he's got a 50 or a 100, but a bowler can only bowl 10 overs. I think just about every cricket pundit has made this comment and I think many pure cricket fans (not masala fans) agree with it too. The other reason for allowing a bowler unlimited overs is that you've got a more even battle between the BEST batsmen and the BEST bowlers and not some minnow and flat track bullies feeding off part timers.

Agree with that somewhat. Though that might lead to sipper friendly wickets with spinners bowling all day. A fast bowler can not bowl long spells, but a spinner can go on and on and on. That will make the match boring and will bring in seriously negative strategies on the name of containment.

2 - The bouncer above head height being called a wide and counting as the "One for the over". If a bouncer is called a wide' date=' WHY IN THE NAME OF HOLY CHRIST, does it get counted as the one bouncer for the over. If it's an illigitemate delivery then why o why does it get counted as the one bouncer for the over? It's the most stupid rule out there, just no logic or common sense to it.[/quote'] Disagree with that. If a ball is out of the batsman's reach, in whatever direction, it should be a wide. Otherwise on a slightly bouncy pitch, bowlers will keep bouncing the batsmen making stroke play impossible. In limited overs matches, the ball must be within the batsman's reach.

3- Bowlers being allowed 2 bouncers for the over. I felt sorry for NZ yesterday when they were bowling at the death' date=' they only had one option, to hit the blockhole and not everyone has the accuracy of Umar Gul when it comes to hitting the blockhole, so it's very difficult to keep batsmen quiet, but I think if the bowlers are allowed to bowler 2 bouncer per over, it allows them some freedome in terms of the lines they can bowl and also keeps the batsmen guessing. It's also a lot easier for most quicks to bowl a bouncer than the blockhole. The bouncer can still be hit anywhere if a batsman can get any bat on it, but a yorker can only be blocked, squeezed or squirted out.[/quote'] That I fully agree with. The bowlers should be allowed to bowl however they want to bowl.

[Lord]

i agree with 2 n 3. just to add to it 1.abolish free hits 2.no wides for ball close to leg stump.

[Zap_Brannigan]

1. There is restrictions on how many balls a batsman can face already. Its 50 overs for the team. Its not like that a bowler cannot bowl after he gets hit for a six (similar to a batsman cannot bat after getting out). In tests, neither side has restrictions. 2. Because the one bouncer per over is to be used as a strategy and not for intimidation. 3. Why not allow all 6? Before, a noball was called whenever a ball went over the shoulders and rightfully so because bowlers can target the batsman's face. Owing to flat pitches, bowlers were given this 1 ball per over. Its absurd that umpires are very lenient on the height already and refuse to call a wide when the ball goes just over the head. Increasing the bouncers in not the answer at death overs. Good bowling should be.

[king2be98]

Every single one of you guys who actually doesn't think long and hard about what I mean in number 2, and then still comes back to tell me I'm wrong, should never watch the game again. It's a wide, it's been called a wide, so 1 run is given to the opposition AND he has to bowl it again. So why when he's been punished for it as an illegal delivery, can he not bowl a legitimate bouncer again? It's the most STUPID rule out there who thinks otherwise, should just stop watchign the game. As for my argument regarding bouncers, more bouncers being allowed, I think it's perfectly reasonable, I'm fed up of seeing batsmen just planting they front foot down with the long handle and expecting it in their half. The extra bouncer allow the bowler far more leeway. It's got to the point where 100+ scored off the last 10 overs is now not exciting, it's pretty routine.

[king2be98]

1.abolish free hits

Agree entirely, there was a game in the champions trophy, I think Pakistan vs India, where one side bowled so many no balls that from the free hit the other side scored almost 50 runs. Now you could say that it serves them right for bowling those no balls, I don't think so, I think the extra delivery and the run given is ample punishment.

[The Outsider]

1. There should not be an unlimited number of overs that can be bowled. As one poster has already pointed out it will lead to slow, low pitches and you will have part time spinners wheeling away with teams stacked with batsmen. What should be done is that a bowler gets rewarded for picking up a wicket - for every wicket he picks up an over gets added to the maximum amount he is allowed to bowl. This would mean more attacking cricket from the fielding side even in the middle overs to get more overs in from their best bowlers. 2. It's a fair rule as it is. The bowler did attempt a bouncer - that he was not able to get it right is because his attempt sucked. 3. 2 bouncers per over is good. At the moment if the bowler bowls one early in the over, FTBs can pretty much plonk their foot down with impunity for the rest of the over.

[99.94]

Get rid of free hits for sure.

[Jersey #10]

It's perfect the way it is. More people like watching cricket when batsmen dominate. We have test format enough flexibility for both bowling side and the batting side and hardly any one likes to watch it. T20 has just made Cricket 2x more watchable in this era when many don't have time to spend 7-8 hours watching cricket forget 5 days of cricket, especially those week day games.

[Jersey #10]

ODI is not a battle between bowlers and batsmen for a fair chance. It's the battle between two teams. As long as both teams have to follow the same rules and play on the same ground it's all cool. a fair game for both sides is all that is needed. meaning, same advantages/disadvantages should be offered to both side's bowling and batting departments. this is one crazy thought OP has. the 25-25-25-25 format is also odd and doesn't make sense. although, it would certainly resolve the problem of one sided games due to changing weather conditions. but then we have T20 so need for 2525...

[Zap_Brannigan]

ODI is not a battle between bowlers and batsmen for a fair chance. It's the battle between two teams. As long as both teams have to follow the same rules and play on the same ground it's all cool. a fair game for both sides is all that is needed. meaning, same advantages/disadvantages should be offered to both side's bowling and batting departments. this is one crazy thought OP has. the 25-25-25-25 format is also odd and doesn't make sense. although, it would certainly resolve the problem of one sided games due to changing weather conditions. but then we have T20 so need for 2525...

OP is an immature **** for saying that everyone with a different opinion should stop watching cricket and i dont suppose he will be able to see it any differently no matter what we say. The 25-25-25-25 format is good as it eliminates (rather reduces) the advantages certain teams get from the playing condition as you said, but it is 2 T20 stung together since a team will get only 10 wickets in their entirety of 50 overs.

[king2be98]

OP is an immature **** for saying that everyone with a different opinion should stop watching cricket and i dont suppose he will be able to see it any differently no matter what we say. The 25-25-25-25 format is good as it eliminates (rather reduces) the advantages certain teams get from the playing condition as you said, but it is 2 T20 stung together since a team will get only 10 wickets in their entirety of 50 overs.

First off I said anyone who didn't agree with point number 2 should stop watching the game, and it's true. Almost every series I watch I hear either Shastri, Greig, Boycott, Chappell, Akram, Benaud, Holding and Hussain all make the same point I have. If so many established commentators and former greats of the game are making the same argument, then surely the ICC need to address it. I'm sick and tired of boring 275+ scores where there's such a routine set up to the match and I don't know why so many people enjoy high scoring matches as more often than not, they're one sided because of the magnitude of the total. As for the main reason why I wouldn't want the 25-25-25-25 format is because it would make an already long day, even longer. In India, with the amount of advertising they have, it would almost certainly add an extra hour to the game.

[bunny]

1. No restriction is not good because we want to see more bowlers. An alternative could be that a maximum of 5 bowlers can bowl (so as to stop the bits and pieces players), and then have the rule which Shwetabh suggests where you reward based on performance. 2. Agree completely. A wide means that there was no chance the batsman could have got hurt, hence so... 3. Agree again.

[Lord]

adding to Shwetabh's idea,i think a rule should be that a batting team is docked one over for every wicket it loses.so it will encourage the bowlers to keep attacking even on flat decks n go for wickets n we'll see less part timers