King Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 The move should encourage bowlers to reduce the number of extras and help matches finish on time. More...
jf1gp_1 Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 another great proposal. next is pull boundary ropes to 30 yards , one mandatory free hit per over and right arm bowler to bowl with left arm.
beetle Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 I hate the way Gavaskar is turning bowlers into jokers in a circus.....Just because he was a batsman ...he has no respect for poor bowlers.The bowlers should get together and fight this unfair treatment.
Holysmoke Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 :hysterical:another great proposal. next is pull boundary ropes to 30 yards ' date=' one mandatory free hit per over and right arm bowler to bowl with left arm.[/quote']
jf1gp_1 Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 such a meaningless rule what a way to encourage bowler to cut extras. Why not have another rule if a batsman does not hit a boundary every 10 balls then -3 from team score. This will encourage batsman like kallis to score faster.
King Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 They worry about 10-20 extra balls bowled in a ODI. They want to save about 10-15 minutes from a ODI game that usually goes on for about 7-8 hours. ICC is screwed up.
Ram Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 The cruel irony is , most of the free hits i have seen have been lame mis-hits to long on or midwicket for a single to two. But it does add to the spice of the game , an expectation of what will happen of the free hit ball ..
Anakin Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Absolutely pointless, if anything they should make it a bit harder for batsmen like not allowing legbyes.
yoda Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 They should also allow free shot at the stump for a bowler if the batsman plays two consecutive dot balls.
THX_1138 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Absolutely pointless' date=' if anything they should make it a bit harder for batsmen like not allowing legbyes.[/quote'] i second that... if the fraker cant hit it, he does not deserve to profit from it! i hate it when a batsman sneaks a legbye of my bowling when he tried to shuffle across the stumps in order to flick but ends up only miscuing and deflecting the ball towards deep leg... i will go a step further, remove intentional padding from ODI. offering the pad to a ball is fine when in tests especially if the bowler is attempting to force a mis hit from the batsman, but in ODIs it is just disrespectful of the bowler and wasteful of the spectator's time. and while we are at it, every time a bowler balls a maiden, the captain should award him in the next over with a super aggressive field positioning.
THX_1138 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 They should also allow free shot at the stump for a bowler if the batsman plays two consecutive dot balls. funny story, in cairn's last international match, an Twenty 20 against South Africa i believe, the match was to be decided on the whimsical "free bowl at the stumps" i.e. the first team to knock over the stumps wins, both sides needed over 7 attempts before someone scored a hit!
Ram Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 i second that... if the fraker cant hit it, he does not deserve to profit from it! i hate it when a batsman sneaks a legbye of my bowling when he tried to shuffle across the stumps in order to flick but ends up only miscuing and deflecting the ball towards deep leg... i will go a step further, remove intentional padding from ODI. offering the pad to a ball is fine when in tests especially if the bowler is attempting to force a mis hit from the batsman, but in ODIs it is just disrespectful of the bowler and wasteful of the spectator's time. and while we are at it, every time a bowler balls a maiden, the captain should award him in the next over with a super aggressive field positioning. While i agree with you on the leg bye situation , your other points defy logic... If i am a batsman , i have the right to decide which shot i play to a ball , let alone if i want to play a shot at all and pad it.How is it insulting to a bowler if a batsamn decides to pad it ? I would like to think it gives the bowler a great chance of an LBW. Give a bowler a supr agreesive field when he has bowled a maiden? This is not over-by-over exhibition. This is cricket , where situation change all the time. The bowler might have bowled the maiden to a tail-ender and in the next over , when he bowls to a proper batsman, he gets a "super-agressive" field ?
THX_1138 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 While i agree with you on the leg bye situation , your other points defy logic... If i am a batsman , i have the right to decide which shot i play to a ball , let alone if i want to play a shot at all and pad it.How is it insulting to a bowler if a batsamn decides to pad it ? I would like to think it gives the bowler a great chance of an LBW. Give a bowler a supr agreesive field when he has bowled a maiden? This is not over-by-over exhibition. This is cricket , where situation change all the time. The bowler might have bowled the maiden to a tail-ender and in the next over , when he bowls to a proper batsman, he gets a "super-agressive" field ? humor and sarcasm are lost on you buddy.
Ram Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 humor and sarcasm are lost on you buddy. not exactly ! the post didnt sound humorous , actually ! if it were meant for that --- three cheers to you.. :thumbs_up::thumbs_up::thumbs_up:
King Posted June 3, 2007 Author Posted June 3, 2007 Yup leg bye is a scam in cricket. Why the heck does a team get rewarded with runs when the batter can't hit the ball? Leg bye qualifies as one of the most stupid rule in any international sport. One problem though if this rule is changed. We will need third umpires with snickometer to judge whether the batter hit the ball or not as many a times an inside edge is not obvious to the umpires. I suppose it is better be left unchanged otherwise we will have third umpire judging the leg byes too.
Ram Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 How bout over-throws from direct hits then ? the fielderi is penalised for his accuracy , which i think is totally unfair. This cant be allowed to continue.
King Posted June 4, 2007 Author Posted June 4, 2007 Yup agree with that, over throws after the ball has hit the batter or the stumps should go. That is grossly unfair.
dial_100 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Absolutely agree with that. Plus I like a choice of extra fielder in the 2nd and 3rd powerplay out side the circle. That way some of the crazy batters can be checked and the match will be more exciting. I hate when Sehwag style batsman can pretty much hit anywhere to score runs. At least opposition should have choice of 3 players outside the circle. It will make it fair for the bolwers.... And no over throws if ball hits the stumps...
Chaos Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 another great proposal. next is pull boundary ropes to 30 yards ' date=' one mandatory free hit per over and right arm bowler to bowl with left arm.[/quote'] u made my day:hysterical::hysterical::haha::haha:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now