Another law that needs changing is the anachronism that allows a batsman a runner. If a batsman can't do his own running, he should either retire hurt and get his sorry arse off the field, or be prepared to get his runs in boundaries.

And about the toss ... perhaps they can dispense with it after the first match, and let the rival captains alternately get the privilege of choosing in subsequent matches.

re: proposal 2, run out off a no-ball -- how many runs should the batsmen be allowed to take? If there is no danger of being run out, they can keep running between the wickets as long as the bat made contact with the ball first!

No run out off a no ball is just silly and impossible to enforce. If you did not have run outs, the batsmen could keep running *forever*!

Also, cricket tried substitutes last year. They weren't very popular and ended up not being used in many matches.

I think you should stick to cricket because you know nothing about rugby. The reason the RWC Final is boring is because over the years journalists like yourself have made it the be all and end all of the game. That means it is too important to do anything other than play tight, controlled rugby.

Your complaining about no tries in rugby is like me complaining there are not enough sixes in a test match.

Proposal 11

Now that we have two seperate and distinct Powerplays, why cannot we let the batting captain chose when he wants one power play to be enforced and give te bowling captain the other block???

This way the batting team could do some planned hitting. Imagine if hershelle Gibbs was giver a free hand in the blok overs.
WOW!!!

Proposal 12

Why couldn't we allow the batting team to challenge an umpire's decision atleast .. hmmm.. say 3 times in an innings like they do in tennis? That way it brings more fairness to the game. The excuse the opponents of third umpire decisions give is that it takes too long if every decision is referred.
All right. Point take. But why not 3 per innings??

A stumping off a wide is an attacking tactic against a charging batsman, particularly for a spinner, and even for a medium pacer with the keeper standing up. Why disempower the bowler even more?

I like both 4 and 6 as they now stand. If the batsman is going to be in, don't throw. It makes them think a bit. As for the boundaries, the status quo has certainly improved fielding skills. Its a "clean" law and it works.

Proposal to make ODI bit favourible for poor bowlers.
Three fielders should be allowed for 2nd & 3rd power-play. Also, the mandatory ball change should happen after 40th over. The boundary should not be less than 70 meters. I agree with stump hieght of 72 cms.

4, 8 and 9 are all excellent suggestions. Though I may not agree with the other suggestions, it is high time some of the laws were at least reviewed thoroughly.

In baseball, two teams alternately play one inning each, repeated 9 times. (The batting order has 9 players, repeating over and over until there are 3 outs in each inning.) Imagine baseball being played like cricket -- one teams play 9 innings and scores X runs. The next team then has to score X + 1 runs in 9 innings. The conditions may change at any time during such a game and one team or the other is at a disadvantage through no fault of their own. If it rains, imagine using the made up Duckworth-Lewis to artificially come up with a result.

This to me is the most nonsensical part of ODI cricket. A better alternative is to play ODIs as follows: Team 1 plays 10 overs, then team 2 plays 10 overs, repeated 5 times. Unlike baseball, once a player is out, he does not get to play again. Bowlers still get only 10 overs max. Such a game would be lot more fun for spectators and lot more competitive. More importantly, it minimizes the impact of weather, pitch and other uncontrollable factors and obviates D-L and other made up calculations.

I enjoy cricket and rugby - bagging the RWC - which was at least exciting in the same year as an absolutely dire Cricket World Cup - too long, poorly attended and very few exciting matches - including the Final is just laughable

An addendum to my earlier post...

Playing ODIs the way I suggested also minimizes the impact of the toss, not just the pitch and weather.

Aju makes an excellent suggestion. We recently saw some horrendous decisions ,both in the India England series and the India Australia ODI series , with the batsman (or the fielding side) unable to do anything. I think we protect the umpires too much and with ultra slow mo , snickometers , hawk eye and other technology , its high time we gave players the right to challenge wrong decisions.We also need to do away with the recent nonsensical rules like free hit and 35 over ball change in the ODIs.I agree with Permberton as well, and would also like to see the allowance of substitute fielders done away with. If one of the fielders wants to go to the loo or is slightly injured , they should play with 10 or less fielders. Far too often we see Ganguly leaving the field of play, with the substitute fielders ( someone like Karthik or Sharma)take a brilliant catch or effect a run out.No subs or runners of any kind.

Some passable points, but a very silly foundation for an article. If groundling-accessible thrills are what we want (and why, sir, are we judging a sport's watchability on what your infant daughter thinks about it?), then cricket needs to do away with shin-pads and helmets, and enforce a strict one-beamer-per-over law. Alternatively you might consider hiring "Pirates of the Caribbean", and leaving the cricket-watching to those of us who happen to think Test cricket perfect, one-day cricket deathly dull, and 20-over cricket the realm of, well, rugby fans waiting for their season to start.

How about abolishing lbw AND pads for batsmen.

Proposals 2 and 3 are just silly - if you can't be run out, wouldn't the batsmen just keep running? (unless you go by proposal 4 and specify that once the stumps, get broken, the ball has ceased to be, and is now pushing up the daisies, etc.)
I don't agree with proposal 5 at all. The variations in pitches are slowly levelling off around the world, as you see foreign teams now being able to adjust to subcontinent conditions, and subcontinent teams winning far more matches abroad. Home advantage is now a thing of the past, and there's no point in giving the away team undue advantage by allowing them to choose.

ODI cricket is becoming increasingly boring where as, test cricket is becoming increasingly interesting. So, I guess they are continuosly tampering with ODI rules while leaving the test rules intact.
Some rules that I would like changed (given that umpires are responsible for so many results) :
1)The authority for the third (TV) umpire to overrule any faulty (non LBW) decisions that an on-field umpire makes. For example, if "snicko" clearly proves that a batsman has nicked it, then, why not let the third umpire decide that he is out. Also, if catch is cleanly taken or not can be easily decided after watching TV replays where as, it is always hit-or-miss for the on-field umpires.
2)Wides & No-Balls should always be decided/suggested by hawk-eye (or equivalent). Why not have some device make a sound (like tennis) which lets the on-field umpire take the correct decision ?

Yes, it's high time substitutes were introduced.At least one should be allowed. And, as mentioned above, substitute fielders and "runners" should be banned. If a player leaves the field, or cannot run while batting, then he should either be substituted completely by a replacement player, or else it's just tough, accept it. And, at grass roots level, when organising cricket teams, rather than only choosing eleven players and risk being one short if someone drops out, it allows the organiser to pick 12 players, all of whom know they will definitely get a game, though not necessarily a full game.

I could not disagree more!

I cannot go into details why I find most of your wrong or at least misguided, it would just take too long. I have a hunch that you are aware of all the plausible counterarguments which you chose not to mention in the least.

In my opinion, only proposal #4 has some merit, although I can very well see why it should stay the way it is.

However, what really got me going is that you chose to take a cheap shot at rugby union. It does not seem very credible, given that you start by claiming that the CWC was good to watch while the RWC was the opposite. An interpretation that strikes me as very singular, given that by most neutral accounts the CWC was the most boring in history, while the RWC was the best in its (albeit short) history.

While this may be seen as simple bias towards your favourite sport, it is interesting to note that it is in my opinion the very same fallacy which makes your proposals to change the Laws so misguided which is behind your thoughts.

Neither rugby nor cricket are to be confounded with football (not the American variety), in that they are not sports which aim to be understood by every six-year-old with no prior knowledge. (Most fooball fans do not even fully understand the one rule which is a little more complex, i.e. the offside law!)

You need to spend time and energy in getting to understand these games. But how much bigger is the reward once you can appreciate the beauty of it all!

Granted, some of the games of the RWC may not have been flashy but - to the rugby connaisseur, or at least the ones I spoke to - every single game in the knock-out phases was invraiably exciting to watch. Much like a a vaillant Atherton rear-guard effort to save a test can be every bit as exciting as a Lara century. (Please tell me that I am not the only one who sees cricket this way!)

I do not want to turn this into a rugby blog (which obviously you did in the first place) but I suggest that you go watching ruby league, if this is the game you prefer.

You should stick to commenting on cricket, where I may not agree with your views, but where your points have may some merit.

I think rules need to be questioned primarily where the punishment is not adequate to the advantage gained. In no case should there be an incentive to break the rules, e.g. "tactical fouls" in football. In rugby if this is percieved to happen repeatedly, a penalty try will be awarded. You cannot award a penalty goal in football; thus, if the fouls occur outside the penalty area the referee cannot do much.

In none of the cases mentioned by you is this really the case. Hence, I do not see the need to change any of the Laws.

For Test matches, I propose 2 sessions of 3 hours each separated by an hour break. I would also abolish legbyes.

Some of these rules make perfect sense. If a batsman is charging down the wicket, stop him legally (shortening the length, bowling a changeup) and not by bowling a wide to get a wicket. The pinch hitter/bowler concept may not go well because a team might very well replace a bowler after his spell with a genuine batsman. Overthrows should remain as they are because they are not infractions and are a part of the game. The batsman should not be allowed to prevent the ball from going on to his stumps. I agree, it's the same as double hitting. And finally, the weight and width of the bat should be a factor. Also the inference by someone that a batsman can keep running off a no ball is stupid. It means that play stops once a wicket falls off a runout. However, I believe a runout should be allowed off a no ball because that is purely the choice of the batsman. Finally, so long as the ball is inside the ropes, it should be considered in play. Those who blatantly oppose all these suggestions, well, are not thinking rationally.

And can someone please get rid of that stupiid bowl-out rule?

you idiot! hahaha it made for entertaining reading but no run out of a no ball? really man how do they let you publish stuff like this?

i want what you're smoking rob

It's appalling, these ridiculous comments readers are posting. You either refute them rationally or do not comment. The words "you idiot!" and "what you're smoking" do not make any sense and should have no part in a debate. With no run-out, the man didn't mean you run forever and live happily ever after. Sachin for one wouldn't be happy with that rule. It means the play stops once you are runout or there have got to be some rules. For example, when a wicket keeper collects the ball, it can be considered end of the play. But anyways, I didn't like that suggestion either because it's a batsman choice to put himself in harms way by running. Think folks, think before insulting.

ODI cricket could stand to be ten overs shorter per innings, though this isn't one of your recommendations. If I were to stand behind one change, I would release naked women onto the pitch after every six. The more sixes, the more women.

As far as rugby goes, I think they need to add more players to the scrum, possibly a third and fourth row. There just aren't enough players in the scrum.

Snip first 6 paragraphs. Who made you a journalist?

most of these suggestions are quite poor, save for the boundary fielding one and the overthrows one

Hit the ball twice was originally introduced because incidents of this nature resulted in one or two deaths of close in fielders. Hence the reason why defending your wicket was not included. As for 2 and 3, either the ball is dead and no runs can be made, or it is alive and the batsmen can be run out. You cannot have it both ways and such a rule would be a farce if implemented.

1: substitute: currently it is ok, but only thing i would like to change is that substitute should not be allowed to field within 30 yards circle.
2 & 3: Either: a ball is dead as soon as it is a no/wide ball(with a panalty run to the batting side) or, the way it is is good.
4: Overthrow, once ball hit the stumps: yeah, i would assume a ball is dead once it hits the stumps.
5: Toss: Well, its a toss. Somethings can be given to luck!
6: Boundaries; DONT compare this to any other sport. Do you want the palyers to get hurt everytime they chase the ball? On the other hand, I was thinking that there should be some more gap between ropes and the hoardings to the players dont get hurt (and not get BAGED into the wall).You've got to give some concerns to the players too, afterall they are human too.
7: Obstruction: Well, This one I agree completely, batsman should not be allowed to touch the ball by bat/hand twice at all.
8: bat width: Agreed, why shouldnt the max width be set?
9: Stumps: I could live with stupms be increased a little more, now that ball's quality and pitches have improved and given that they can bounce more after pitching.
10: Intervals: Even ODI's should have some chnage: why not have two 25 over sessions? Or at least start using the D/L method at the beginning of an innings, if you know there are chances of rain, and not wait for an inninggs and half. Reduce the overs at the beginning of the game to give both teams equal playground.
11: I think 3rd umpire should over-ride wrong decisions made by on-field umpire: like caught behinds, nicks, no-nicks and even very very bad lbw's.
12: I would also get rid of leg byes. they are not the valid runs by a batsman.

How about a tennis like call questioning rule? If either of the team feels like it has received a bad call it can challenge it; 2 challenges allowed and only before the instant replay is available for viewing. If the team wins the challenge it keeps it else it loses it. However the BOD goes to the decision at hand.

Rob,

I think your first idea is very similiar to the super-sub idea that was tried. It clearly dint go down favorably with the players and hence was dicthed.

I think even your second idea is not well thought-out. Sometimes wides are bowled intentionally with the keeper standing up to get a batsmen stumped.

The others are not interesting. For example, why make the stumps 7.2. I want it to be 7.3.

I think this artcile does not live up to the high standards you usually set.

It's a nice idea to try and rationalise the rules, but they are not as ill-thought out as you might imagine.

1. Cricket has done well to reject the namby-pamby new-age love of substitutes. In life there are no substitutes. You either perform or you don't. This is a battle of 11 v. 11. Every man knows that he better last the course for the sake of his team or he's better off not turning up at all. Proper old school. In cricket the 12th man is a laughing stock and rightly so.

2. Wides negate the contest of bat and ball. If however a batsman manages to engage a wide ball then its game on, and all the normal rules apply. A man can only get stumped if he is out of his crease attempting to engage the ball, so he is deemed to have brought the 'wide' ball back into play. This rule also allows a bowler to outwit a batsman who charges cavalierly down the track. In making his charge the batsman is clearly engaging in contest.

3. No-balls give the bowler an unfair advantage. If however the batsman has been able to strike the ball and also contemplate a run, clearly the bowler did not gain that much of an advantage, so it's game back on.

4. Good point on overthrows and you have a case, but come on, it's just great entertainment whenever that happens. This rule is like the jester in Shakespearean drama - provides light relief without really affecting the result.

5. Like touching gloves in fighting or shaking hands in tennis, this is just one more bulwark against unbridled human savagery, although judging by current trends, how long before we see the captains sledging each other during the toss? Or the winner pointing the loser back to the pavilion? Or whirling his blazer at him?

6. Be careful here or you could have a fielder charge up the stands as soon as the ball is released and take a diving catch into the spectators off a 100 metre hit for 'six'. The current rule is hard to enforce without cameras. Why not just keep it simple and say that the ball has to be inside the ropes to prevent a four and some part of the fielder to prevent a six?

7. Protecting your wicket is a defensive measure, if you are quick enough you can have a 2nd or even 3rd go at stopping the ball from hitting the sticks - hitting or intervening for any other purpose is offensive in both senses of the word.

8. Agreed, although we may have to wait for another Lillee or Trevor Chappell moment before the rule is actually changed.

9. Easy fella, next you'll be targetting the 5 and 3/4 oz that the ball weighs! Round it to 6!

10. Come on now. We're civilised people here. Only 30 minutes for lunch? Soup, sandwiches and a bit of dessert in 30 minutes? There's already a hard enough contest going on, without adding to the tension at lunch. Pudding or risk being timed out? That's a choice no cricketer should have to make. Also you're forgetting the drinks intervals they get nowadays.

You complain about the mechanisation and lack of charm in rugby and then you set about removing the very things in cricket that have managed to keep these evils at bay on the oval field. On the contrary we need more arcane and intricate rules that keep the neutrals and ne'er go gooders at bay. Whatever next? 20-20????

That all works for me Rob.
And the Rugby bit.
Cheers.

1 - takes away having to decide between an extra batsman, quick bowler or spinner. To what benefit?
2 & 3 - you say yourself the batting side should be able to take "due and just toll". This is what the present rule does.

4 - just as often overthrows come when the ball shouldn't have been thrown in the first place. Hardly a major issue

5 - again would make picking a team too easy. Too much of an advantage for the away team

6 - this just isn't enough of a problem to warrant a change. You'd still have arguments as to whether the ball was caught in the field

7 - being allowed to defend your wicket seems a reasonable exceptional case. Again, there's no problem here needing fixing

8 - worth looking at. Hurrah!

9 - it is exactly 711 mm. If it's worth changing, it would have to be for better reasons than this

10 - perhaps 2 x 30 minute intervals could be considered. The time for intervals should be adjustable for ends of innings or weather delays - I think there would be little more annoying than having a break, one or two overs of play, and then another break. Ditto having players off the field for a scheduled break in playable weather after a weather delay.

Run outs are required on no-balls as pointed out by others.

It would be simpler to limit the weight of the bat to a maximum of 2 pounds 8 ounces, or whatever that is in metric.

Three other rules : 1) Leg bye.. batsman fails to read the ball, it hits him and then deflects at a random angle.... bowling side penalised through leg byes ? Ridiculous

2) Ball pitches outside leg stump batsman offers no stroke, no leg before. But Why ? If the ball hits you in line with stumps even if it pitches outside leg, ball is within reach of the batsman to play, so if he is plumb then he should be out even if ball pitches outside leg.

3) Padding away offering no stroke ...Deliberate padding should be out..Either the batsman knows the ball is not hitting the stumps, so he leaves it or takes evasive action...or he thinks it will hit the stumps and so plays the ball...what is the merit of the in between where batsman thinks ball will not hit stumps but still offers his pads ? And feels offended if he is given out.

1. Deadball if fielder hits a stump is fair
2. If its no ball or wide ball then you might as well call it a dead ball and allow a hit because otherwise batsmen will keep running all day long
3. There is no way you can compare baseball to cricket. They both have their own charm. Cricket has ropes as boundaries so fielders can physically cross over - whereas baseball has a wall or fence - fielders cannot cross over.
4. Cricket has its own charm and history ( each sports does ) and some rules like toss are there because various conditions play a big role and a team / captain need to read them and make use of them.

To the people saying ban runners, I agree with you from a cricketing standpoint, but it will never be changed, and that's for legal reasons. To deny an injured batsman the right to treatment, to deny any sportsperson, in this litigious society, is tantamount to legal suicide, and would put cricketing grounds, boards and even the ICC up to massive lawsuits they would always lose. They know this, this is why the runner rule is restricted to a batsman can have a runner if he injures himself during the game (as a pose to carrying an injury into the game) as in a situation where a batsman takes the field reasonably thinking he is fit, then suffers an injury and is denied a runner, say for example, if he injures his knee, and then because he is denied a runner, on the next run he tries to take blows up his knee which ends his career, he would sue for millions, and win.

I am not saying I agree with this, but it is the law, and that can't be disputed, and won't change anytime soon. So the runner rule is here to stay, like it or not.

I think some of the other changes Rob suggests could happen though, and do have merit.

hmmm...

Jay's comments make me see the article in a completely new light...

Another lbw rule that looks silly is the one that says you are not out lbw if the ball touches the bat before it hits the pads. By that logic, a batsman can't be out played on!

4, 7 and 8 are worth trying.. the rest aren't compelling or will make things more complicated.

some others that I like:

Convert ODIs to 2 x 20 format with batters getting one chance across 2 innings (and bowlers get 10 overs each. so an extra batsman can be accomodated). This also shortens the spectacle to 40 overs a side and makes for a tighter contest. If you cant have 2 innings, at least reduce the 50 over game by 10 overs.

I agree that leg byes dont make sense. Why should a batsman profit from non-bat hits? But leg byes are so much a part of cricket history.. am neutral regarding this one

No runners allowed. If you cant run, hit boundaries or retire.

have a quota of 2 challenges per innings (for 3rd umpire review)

Postpone ball change to 40th over in ODIs. Let batting team decide one of the power plays

To those criticising the article, did you notice the phrase: "10 modest proposals" which Rob used to start the piece? It's a Swift way to generate responses.

Two desired changes not suggested in the article:
1. Allow a substitute fielder to keep wicket too, if selected wicket-keeper suffers VISIBLE INJURY. This is a specialist task and a match can be reduced to absurdity if the 'keeper is incapacitated very early in the game.
2. Stop pampering batsmen in ODIs and T20s by declaring wides even if ball is marginally outside leg stump. If a batsman is not competent to stroke a ball within his normal reach then he should not be rewarded. Make it mandatory that umpires call wide only if a ball passes outside the guide markings, apart from those for height.

I think that the first law that need to be amended is that of Leg Byes. One simply can not comprehend the logic behind this law. During the fierce contests between the bat and ball in the death overs, why should a bowler be penalised for bowling straight and beating the batsman all ends up. This can really hurt in the shorter version of the games like Twenty 20.

Agreed for the most part, but keep the stumpings off wides and the run outs off no balls. And you're dead right about the rugby

ODI is 8 hours long! 8 hours! No civilized society should allow a single game to occupy the time of humanity for 8+ hours.

This is how you improve cricket and make it an "international sports". First of all Nobody in the WORLD cares about cricket. Just look at the countries [India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka] they dont count. England, Australia and South Africa play multiple sports [Soccer etc] and excel in Olympic sports as well. So these 3 countries do not count either. And thats it..these are all the cricket playing nations. Please Kenya, Zimbabwe and West Indies should not count, they have more pressing issues at hand such as struggling economies and mass political crisis.

After Soccer, Basketball is the most popular sport, with countries like China, Europa and South America [Argentina etc] emerging as huge markets for NBA [National Basketball Association]. After basketball it is Baseball [Major League Baseball and World Baseball Classic emerging as two big tournaments for USA, Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Caribbean countries, Europe and South America.

Nobody, except NRI [Non Resident Indians] or expatriate Indians and Pakistanis in multitude of countries play cricket in their country of residence.

So the question at hand is, how to change the format, scheduling, rules of the game to make shorten the length, increase the vitality and marketing of this game in the world market.

The Australian domestic one day competition has introduced the rule that the batting team gets to choose one of the power plays this summer, as some people have suggested here.
I'm in favour of this and it will be interesting to see how much it changes the match .... maybe we'll see the rule applied in the international arena if it works well.
Most of the ideas proposed by the article do not seem particularly well thought out though.

So this is how you improve the game.

1. Play a world cup every year. This is imperative, because that is how every major sports is played in the world. FIFA may come around every 4 years, but in those 4 years, Soccer teams/clubs from all over the world compete in various championships [Euro Cup, Champions trophy, Copa America, MLS etc etc]. Cricket however has no format. If teams are not playing a tournament, they are basically playing useless series with each other. This invalidates any win/loss result.

A fixed format. 6 Month Schedule. 4 divisions. Teams play the same # of games. Now teams in the same division, can have mini series with each other, can tour each other. Then two division will have some matches with each other. In the end, based on win/loss results, teams will be ranked from 1 through 6 [Assuming 12 total teams]. Based on the ranking which is based on wins/loss, teams will be playing PLAYOFFS [Quarter finals, Semi Finals]. Finally culminating in World Series, which will be the final of the last two teams and a champion is crowned every year.

2. 35 max overs. This eliminates a short 20 over format, and eliminates a ridiculous long 50 over format. It takes about 1 hour for 12-15 overs. Reducing the match to 35 overs, will instantly eliminate 2.5 hours from the game.

3. Lunch 15-30 mins max. No team allows a lunch of 45 mins to an hour. Soccer it is accepted, because in Soccer, the players play nonstop [RUNNING] for 45 mins. In cricket, there is no need for a 45 min break. The batting team is well rested, as at any given time, only two ppl bat. As for the fielding team, the openers are well rested, as they are in most case not frontline bowlers.

This will ensure that the total match time is reduced to 5-6 hours max. It the game starts at 3 pm, it is done by 8 pm. People can do other things after 8 pm. Either go home or go out to clubs/bars, late dinner. Possibilities are endless.

It is important to understand, that a game is "exciting" not because 300 runs were scored, but the level of competitiveness. Even 100 runs on board, can be exciting to watch, if the other team is all out for 95 runs.

More suggestions on the way...

A few additional suggestions. Get rid of leg byes.Why should the batting side be able to score runs or rotate the strike when a batsman can't put bat to ball?
Second, Umpires should be allowed to view slow motion replays. It is patently absurd that everybody watching gets to benefit from it except the people directly involved.Bit like allowing journalists access to all the evidence, but not the judge!I feel, however, that technology should be restricted to establishing what has ALREADY happened, such as whether the batsman got an edge, the ball struck the pad in line, etc, but not for predicting whether the ball WOULD have gone on to hit the stumps. Predictive technology is not good enough as yet.
Also, why should the ball be changed after 34 overs in an ODI? According to Mickey Arthur, so that it doesn't reverse swing and the batsman can hit the ball harder! Surely bowlers are part of this game? If a leather ball cannot retain it's colour, can't we use synthetic leather instead?
Another important point. Kevin Petersen plays the "reverse" sweep after switching his hands' position. Does that make him a left hander when LBWs are to judged? Is this not "unfair play", as the field was set for a right hander, in which case the Ump should call No-ball? If KP etc can do this, why can't the bowler use either arm at will?

what seems to have been suggested here is a removal of many of the things that give cricket its unique character. not allowing run outs off of no balls? stumpings off of wides? if the bowling side are willing to risk the wide they deserve the wicket. if the batsmen doesn't like it he can watch the ball travel by while safely anchored in his crease and duly receive a run for the team. as long as the rules are applied evenly to both sides where is the problem? if u want a simpler bat and ball game try baseball. i have recently as i'm living in south korea. i can only say that i defy anybody to get to know and fall in love with cricket and still find baseball watchable. much of the appeal of cricket is its quirks and subtleties. surely 71.1cm is just so much more attractive than 72cm? or what about this...who knew that the stumps were 71.1cm high before reading this article? i suspect the machine making the stumps doesn't mind and i guess reading 71.1 off the tape measure is about as difficult as 72. as for allowing more subs...is it not possible this system lends itself too easily to being abused? who's to really say if a player is injured or not? i'm guessing that if he leaves his team a player short we can safely say he is. frankly, i think not too many good suggestions in this article. if cricket is too tricky there's always the baseball...

There are enough comments on the pros and cons of Rob's suggestion, so I woon't delve into that. I would like to throw in one suggestion, for what it is worth.

I feel that the most unfortunate way to get out is the ball touching the bowler's fi9ngers (accidentally,always; not by any grand tactical design)and hitting the stumps at the non-strikers end and the striker having backed up is caught short! Run out, says the rule book. I wish they would do away with this one very quickly.

Any takers?

Rajesh, Nairobi

You're being too meek here. The are proposals for Twenty/20 only, so at least I am not proposing to pollute Test Cricket (amen).

1. No throwing law. Don't worry about 15 degrees, 20 degrees, 30 degrees. . . Not cricket, you say? Laws should have a purpose; they should just exist because they have existed - the purpose of the throwing law was to provide a more even chance for batsman against bowler. In Twenty/20, the advantages are all in the batsman's favor, so why do we need this? Surely not just to keep fans of super-slow motion, Bishan Bedi, and the science of "flexion" interested. And modern protective gear eliminates any safety justifications.

2. This one might actually get implemented - allow captains to pull off the crease any batsman who is scoring too slowly. There is nothing more frustrating than having a team lose a chance because of one batsman who can't get the ball of square or has a brainfreeze and doesn't even have the decency to get himself out. I've even come up with a nice euphemism for this: "retired captain's discretion". Also, only in case the rest of the team are eventually all out, the disgraced batsman could be allowed to resume his innings and perhaps redeem himself.

I thought about the rule to only toss a coin just once - at the beginning of a series. But then again, if they do this then the groundsmen will know which team will bat first in every game. Can you imagine the controversey about dodgy pitches arising from that?
But I like the rest of your ideas.

Have the rules of golf changed? Or formula 1? Cricket constantly seems to be reaching to be a mass-appeal sport when it has a bunch of core followers. Leave the beautiful game the way it is. We already have the lunacy of the free hit, the farce of T20 and the nonsensical restriction on bouncers.

What were you thinking about the running after a no-ball? Batting will become an endurance sport. I can imagine Cricinfo gleefully reporting:

"No ball and Dhoni and Sachin are off, how many will they run this time? Remember, the previous record was 1,450 runs by the Kenyan pair of Odumbe and Odabe"

I have to say that I only agree with you when you say the Boundary rules need to be changed.
I think the other suggested changes are either unnecessary or just plain wrong.
I would like the laws to be changed when it comes to dissent. I think batsmen and bowlers should be given the right to show their frustration without directly offending the umpire. I also believe that cricket should follow tennis and allow 1 appeal per innings (for each side) to be sent to the third umpire. I think this can be tested in Twenty20s and then ODIs.

Law 8.2 actually says
"The tops of the stumps shall be 28 in/71.1cm above the playing surface"
71.1cm is a metric approximation to a nice round number of inches.
If you want to be a metric evangelist you'll need to round up a whole load of dimensions

Implicx

"No one supports cricket. Any country that does support cricket doesn't count. I Have Spoken." Can you see how that statement doesn't make any sense?

And you mention the countries that support baseball. Fine. Canada- ice hockey. Doesn't count. China-athletics. Doesn't count. Europe, South America- soccer. Doesn't count. And that's all according to your own logic.

I think the "touching boundary" rule has got to go. Otherwise, you should go the whole hog and say that any firmly struck ball that's stopped should be four. After all, it WOULD have reached the rope if it hadn't been stopped in the first place!

And another rule that should be changed- why is it that a ball can sail three feet outside off and be legal, and drift three centremeters past leg and be illegal? A ball on your pads is just as easy to reach as a ball a metre outside off, so why are they treated differently?

Ultimately any changes to the laws could be circumvented by playing conditions that are enforced for particular competitions (e.g. restrictions in nos. of fielders during powerplays). Often cricket fails to realise that it sets too many regulations from the top-down. If you were to ask for example cricketers in a developing nation what they would like to see in the laws they would have a more practical based set of suggestions and ones that were not open to interpretation - e.g. what happens if no neutral umpires are sent (the laws might state that an umpire should be at the ground prior to the toss, but in many parts of the world, across the amateur game, you are still grateful for the presence of competent umpires). I'd personally like to see it made an automatic offence under the laws for players to charge an umpire in an attempt to intimidate him into making a decision. Since the umpires are there to ensure that the game is played according to the laws, surely it would make sense to have greater provision in the laws to back the umpires up - across all echelons of the game.

Most of these changes would make no difference in most matches, but the idea of allowing substitutions is ridiculous, just play fewer matches, especially pointless ODI's and 20/20's

The toss is SO IMPORTANT in Test Cricket.Why not alternate? i.e.Toss for the 1st Test and the Captain that loses the toss has the choice of batting or bowling first in the next test and so on. Much fairer !!!

I won't bother commenting on rugby as it holds absolutely no interest for me, never has done and is never likely to, regardless of the tactics used, the size of the pitch or indeed any other aspect of the game. If other people find it interesting, that's fine. Each to his own.

Regarding the cricket...

1. This was tried in ODIs (with the difference of only one substitute being allowed in total, rather than one for each discipline), and it didn't work. No point going there again.

2 & 3. "Take due and just toll without fear of retribution"? That's daft - as has been pointed out by several others it would just result in the batsmen continuing to run ad infinitum.

4. That's not punishing the fielding side for an accurate throw, it's punishing them for failing to stop the rebound. No reason to change it.

5. That's one possibility, although I prefer the idea of tossing for the first match of a series and alternating thereafter; if the composition of the away team is such that a pitch prepared in a particular way would put them at a massive disadvantage, then maybe they need to rethink their selection.

6. Yes, there are numerous such sights; fielders know the law and managing both to stop the ball and knock it back is a feat of athleticism. No reason to change that either.

7. "Either it is wrong to obstruct the ball's destiny or it isn't"? Are you suggesting that a batsman should be permitted to shoulder-barge a fielder in order to prevent a catch being taken? On the other hand, the purpose of the bat is to hit the ball with, and there's no reason to forbid the batsman to do so more than once. Far more reason to stop him padding/kicking the ball away (see below).

8. A restriction on the width of the bat is obviously necessary, but why on the thickness or even the height? As it is, a particularly tall batsman is forced either to bend double in the crease or leave an inviting gap to be yorked.

9. Whether this was implemented or not would have absolutely no effect. Would you want to metricate all other measurements specified in the Laws too - for instance, make the pitch 20m long instead of the current 20.12? This is cricket, not some set of EU regulations.

10. Again, a change that while not necessarily being particularly bad, wouldn't really make much difference.

And finally, two of my own suggestions, both designed to address the current imbalance of bat over ball:

a) Abolish all the various permutations of the LBW law, and simply state that if the batsman stops the ball with any part of his body or equipment (other than bat and gloves, obviously) when it would have gone on to hit the stumps, he is out. A batsman can be bowled by a ball that pitched outside leg stump or hit his bat first, so why not LBW? This would make things much simpler for newcomers to cricket to understand (currently the LBW law is to cricket what the offside rule is to football), make life much easier for the umpires and encourage batsmen to be more positive by giving them a strong disincentive to pad the ball away any time it pitched outside leg.

b) Bring back uncovered pitches. There is no rule to stop the effect on the pitch of bowlers' footmarks or the natural break-up, so why stop the effect of the weather. Batsmen nowadays have it easy compared to their counterparts 50 years ago who had to play on rain-affected pitches.

I think the comments on Rugby Union are unfounded and not thoroughly thought out. I have to agree that a "boring" rugby game can be as interesting as an Atherton rear guard action, if you understnad the game properly. I wonder if the comments by Rob would be the same if England had won in the Final.

As for the rule changes, why not have some input from the players on a regular basis - sy annually or bi-annually. Most changes suggested in the recent past has come from administrators, and ditched after complaints from the players. Super-subs did not work and was ditched after the players suggested that it was not working. None of the suggested changes makes much sense, hence the need for input from the players themselves.

Why change teh regulations regarding the bats? Just as it's a batsmen's choice to run off a no-ball, and put himself at risk of being dismissed, so it should be his right to decide how heavy he would like his bat to be? Sorry for the lengthy response.

skchai in reply to your comment number 2. Such a option exists already.. a batsman can retire at any stage of a game..but captains dont utalise this option in the international arena.. such an option is lots in junior cricket and in tour games to give other batsmen ago..

Leg Byes HAVE to go - how can a batsmen score runs for mising the ball and deflecting it because of his pads/body parts? Cricket is about bat on ball...GET RID NOW

ban the leg bye!

Rob,
You are obviuosly a cricket fan, and not a sports fan. So don't criticise other sports, especially one that is more exciting to watch that cricket. Rugby is all action for 80 minutes. Cricket, even limited over cricket, loses its appeal once one side gets far enough ahead. I wonder if you are really relieved that England lost - or maybe putting down a sport where you actually have to be physically fit to compete is your way of drowning your sorrows. Please stick to what you actually may know a little about.

While I appreciate the open mindedness the writer has shown in suggesting these rule changes, I am disappointed over the naivety over cricket rules shown by him.

Things like 'substitutes have already been tried and failed in cricket', 'No run outs on no balls will be a big loop hole' and 'leaning against fences to catch a sixer is allowed in case of fence boundaries' are well-known to cricket fans around the world. Even then most of the changes suggested have not been thought through very well.

IMHO the best suggestion ironically comes from one of the comments where the players could be allowed to challenge the umpire thrice an innings like in tennis.

Ban appealing. The umpire makes the decision on whether a batsmen is out. Does he need help from the fielding team. It could stop some of the inane appeals. Also with arm guards right done to the gloves them make the armguard a part of the glove. Batsmen could be caught off the guard as it is extension of the glove at times.

Why quota on 3rd umpire reviews ?

Just allow sides to challenge with a kicker penalty of .... 10 runs OR 2 overs, (to be decided by the other side) in case your challenge fails.

This will get rid of most of the accusations that ICC has to run away from when umpires err & maybe as a co-incidence, only one side suffers the brunt of the errors. The suffering side would have the option of leveraging this one.

I feel last batsman should be allowed to bat,fielding side should get all the 11 batsman out,why penalise a batsman who is playing well but running out of partners

1)If its 7 matches series and the series is decided in 4 matches cancel the other matches,theres no point in playing these matches just for pride sake.
2)Reduce the number of overs to 40, and allow each team to play 20 overs per innings, for instance team batting first will play 20 overs take a break. Team batting second will resume and play 20 overs, And again Team batting first will resume there innings and play there last 20 overs. In this way we can insure game is on the wire through out the match

skchai's point 2 is interesting. A variation to this could be the batsman having to retire when he reaches a certain score, 50 for example. I've seen this in 6's tournaments where the batsman needs to retire (and can come back if everybody gets out) when they reach 30 or 35 runs.

I do agree with Rob's point 4 on runs from deflections off the stumps. As for the rest, don't see much benefit to the game.

Another great suggestion is allowing the batting/fielding side a limited number of appeals against an umpires decision per innings. I am all for bringing in technology to aid umpires in their decision making. We've all see too many games turned around by 1 or 2 bad decisions by umpires. I guess the problem is in the perception that the technology will be used to judge the umpires performance or undermine the umpires authority rather than help in making decisions.

(1) I believe that "stumped off a wide" should be abolished. "Run-out off a no-ball" should be amended to apply only if (at the umpire's discretion) at least one batsman has made an attempt to score a run. (I suggest this because I have seen a batsman given out "run out" off a no-ball, making no attempt to score, but he was out of his crease and would have been given out "stumped" had the ball been legal.)

(2) Leg before: The rule should be simplified to "if the ball hits the batsman's leg or body before or without touching the bat, and if in the opinion of the umpire it would have gone on to hit the stumps". None of this nonsense about pitching outside leg, or hitting the batsman outside off or leg. If it hits the bat first, not out.

(3) The conventions regarding wides down the leg side in one-day matches should be changed, they are certainly not part of the Laws in any case. The recent incident where a player was bowled behind his legs by a ball which the umpire called "wide" only illustrates this point - as do the many times in which I have seen a batsman miss a leg-side sweep, getting the entire length of the bat beyond the ball (so it was clearly not out of his reach).

(4) No temporary substitute fielders. Sorry, Gary Pratt. If a fielder needs to nip off for a call of nature, you field with ten until the eleventh comes back. Substitutions only allowed in the case of incapacitating injury (i.e. the replaced player may not return to bowl or field again at all in the innings, or at least not on the same actual day.)

(5) As others have said - The toss could be made once at the start of a series, in a series of several games. After that, the privilege of choosing to bat or bowl should alternate between the sides.

(6) Agreed with the suggestion about the ball becoming dead, as soon as the stumps are broken by it, or by the fielder with ball in hand.

(7) Should a not-out batsman be allowed to retire and resume his innings later, at either his own discretion or the captain's? (But, retain the principle that a "partnership" can only count for the record books if exactly two batsmen were involved in it: as is currently the case with the "retired hurt" conventions for statisticians.

(7) Remove Test match status and Official ODI stations from matches involving composite sides, such as the recent Rest Of The World Versus Australia matches. Nobody takes them seriously anyway, least of all the participants. They're first-class matches (like the 1970 "England versus Rest Of The World" series), but not Tests.

Rugby isn't everyone's cup of tea. I personally find a raw elegance in the passes and the scrum. If you don't like it, just switch off the tv.

As for your proposed laws. I vote for none. Part of the charm of cricket for me is its eccentricity. Cricket is not like other games, and there's no reason why it should be compared so. I believe that these changes we keep making disillusion cricket fans to some extent. The question I keep running through my head is if the heroes of yesterday were playing now, would they be heroes still? That is, in the present version of the game, with all these changes? Do those records even apply today?

The odd rules the game has serves to liven conversation between fans. E.g: 71.1cm for a wicket is a topic of conversation. Why 71.1 specifically? 72cm is much more boring.

The thickness of the bat allows for bat makers to adjust the weight of the bat. Fixing this third dimension will make bats very similar to each other. And for what? We love to hear about the heavy or light bats batsmen carry. The heavy bat wielded by the batsman likens itself to a mystical sword carried by a warrior.

I like skchai's suggestions, too. One thing I haven't seen discussed: how feasible would it be to get rid of dead rubbers? If schedule crowding is a concern, and you're taking ideas from American sports, why not play "best-of" series for ODIs? Less revenue, but also less cricket. Better teams get more time to rest. Crowds get to bust out brooms and stuff. Bad idea?

These are the rule changes I would want, #4 and #5 are the same as Rob's.
1) No leg-byes - batting side does not deserve any runs if they cannot hit the ball with the bat.
2) No substitutes of any kind - fielders, runners etc disallowed.
3) Each side be allowed to challenge the umpires decision 3 times in an innings - successful challenges should not count against the 3 allowed.
4) Disallow overthrows when the fielder throws the ball and hits the stump.
5) No tosses - the visiting side always has the option of choosing to either bat or bowl first - too often the home team ends up winning the series.
6) Visiting team can bowl with the ball of their choice - be it Kookaburra, SG or Duke or whatever (from a preselected list of ball manufacturers) - of course the home team can also make its own choice - once again this will negate home advantage.

Leaving aside the cheap shots at rugby (which I see have been pointed out and disparaged by previous readers), I found the ideas presented (except for 1, 4 and 7) to be misinformed, irrelevant or just plain silly.

I think the idea of substitutes would be beneficial in some cases- Simon Jones' injury at the Gabba test of 2003 springs to mind. You would have to specify an 'injuries only' proviso here, or we'd get the farce that was the supersub rule (shudders).

2 + 3. I completely disagree, based on the arguments outlined by previous readers- removing the risk of dismissal from wides/no-balls is a movement towards the instant gratification type of sport you see in twenty20. Yuck.
4. This is probably the only one of your recommendations I'd endorse with no qualifications. A stupid anomaly in the rules.
5. Surely not! Opposing teams can overcome that through selections, and it forms part of the home advantage that makes tours abroad such a challenge. And come on, simple regulation of the coin will do to stop cheating, you don't need to impose an arbitrary rule. If you really want to crack down on the quality of pitches (such as Hamilton for the World XI vs. NZ tsunami match or the India vs. Australia match in 2004 at Mumbai) then a set of minimum criteria could be drawn up.
6. Lunacy- cricket is dangerous enough without the danger of running into metal hoardings at 30km/hour, thank you very much. That's why they phased it out initially.
7. Fair enough, I think the most obvious examples of obstructing the field or ball with a double hit have usually been deemed 'out', although a more generic law would help.
8. True considering some of the bats they're churning out these days.
9. *Stares incredulously* For God's sake, its 9mm!
10. I don't agree- the whole institution of a 'tea break' seems utterly bizarre to me. I can't think of any other sporting custom (excluding amateurism) more aligned to British upper-class heritage than this. Does anyone actually break work for tea? It's just a glorified drinks break.

Lunch break is different, as there's actually a meal involved there and is part of the social fabric of most societies. Keep it. treasure it. But tea? Come off it, Verity.

PS Did you actually find the cricket world cup interesting? Aside from the soap opera that was Fredalo, it has to be the least eventful, least competitive and most zealously overdone tournament I've seen. My new working theory is that you're an ICC mole designed to rewrite the history books.

First prize to implicx for the most insane suggestions. You are clearly a stump short of a wicket. This is why:
1. You suggest that they play a World Cup every year. Because in other sports they play some osrt of tournament. Well, what about the Champions Trophy? Or all the triangular series tournaments, or the Twenty20?
2. 6 Month schedule? four divisions? playoffs and WORLD SERIES? This is CRICKET we are discussing here. How would you split the teams? and why 6 months. surely the point of International cricket is that different Test nations have different cricket seasons? and different conditions which need to be adjusted to.

Prior to that you discussed how cricket is not an international sport, dismissed the Subcontinent because it "doesn't count" or more accurately, doesnt fit your theory. And then disqualify Kenya, Zimbabwe and the Windies for economic and political reasons.

Then you try to push basketball? two can play at that game:

"After Soccer, Basketball is the most popular sport, with countries like China, Europa and South America [Argentina etc] emerging as huge markets for NBA [National Basketball Association]. After basketball it is Baseball [Major League Baseball and World Baseball Classic emerging as two big tournaments for USA, Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Caribbean countries, Europe and South America."

Surely your 'struggling economies' and 'mass political crises' argument can be used to eradicate China, USA, Mexico, Caribbean, South America from these lists. Your argument is very Americentric, only a Yank would be foolish enough to suggest that baseball and basketball were the second and third most popular sports in the world, or be ignorant enough to disqualify countries from inclusion and then use some of the same countries to justify a very weak point.

Rob,
Couldn't you at least do some thinking before writing something like that?
And what's with the complex with Rugby and Football?
This is Cricket and let it be Cricket, not some sport with a stick and hand Rugby Football rules

A couple of things I forgot to mention
About the thickness of the bat, we are all different people with different bodies and wrists and we should be allowed to choose heavy or lighter or thicker or thinner bats as of our need. This is called 'DIVERSITY'
It's only because of people like you that we have this stupid law in Cricket where a cricket match ends with the score of 5-2 or 3-4 etc. I want to see the scoreboard saying it was a cricket match won by n runs or n wickets

Okay here goes guys. Most of you failed to understand the depth of the argument.

China, USA and most European countries, play all the sports and excel in Olmypic sports. South American coutries, excel in soccer, which is the # one watched and played sport in the world. Carribeans, Mexico play soccer, baseball and basketball, again 3 most successful franchised sports in the world.

As for Cricket, Only South Asian Countries are crazy about it. Australia, England, South Africa, do not count, because these countries are very proficient in multiple sports. Soccer is the undisputed king in England, Rugby for Australia.

Maybe you guys are not aware of the popularity of basketball in China, Europe, South America. And if you are not aware of it, it is your own ignorance not my "foolishness". Baseball is the most popular sport in Japan and many carribean countries. Regardless of how "struggling" carribean countries are, they prefer Baseball over Cricket. This is not a claim, these are facts. 20% + Baseball players with salaries of over 10 + million per year are from the Carribeans, Mexico, South America. Argentia beat USA in world Basketball championship few years back.

But as for Cricket. Other than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka and we all know how disastrous the World Cup was in the West Indies.

Dont agree with any of the suggestions, especially the Toss. If the Toss is done away with, it will introduce the ability to rort a test match. The Toss is critical for teams and the curator. Knowing the result a month in advance will simply make is easy to doctor results.

This is a poor article. Change for change's sake. lets be like other sports. if I want other sport, I'll watch other sports.

To retain interest and encourage fielding side and bowlers, leg byes should be removed because the batsmen has failed to make contact with the ball and bowler has succeeded in beating the bat so why should batsmen get the benefit for no fault of the bowler.
Other thing should be ovet throws - if ball hits the stumps then it should be considered dead ball because the best a fielder can do is field and hit the stumps, which he has done then why should he be penalised for perfect fielding. This will also encourage fielders to hit the stumps regularly and improve fielding.

Explain this one to me:

When helmets were not seen on cricket fields, padding was primitive and there was no skull protector but for the shock of hair, we had no restrictions on short-pitched bowling. Now that batsman turn out like knights in armour, we constrain the bowlers - as if they were not constrained enough - by letting them bowl "1 for the over". Come on chaps!! With the legside fielding restrictions anyway there, short-pitched bowling is not really tantamount to bodyline. And it is a great sight to behold when a Shoaib bouncer is hooked over long leg for six.

Kids these days need to get their priorities right; your daughter should be studying instead of watching TV. That is, unless she wants to end up being a sportswriter like you.

Why should'nt the third umpire be allowed to voluntarily rectify a decision taken on the field if it is apparently incorrect ?

I fully agree with 8, 9 and 10 (especially 8). I fail to see what's wrong with No.2 and 3. With 3 batsman can run for the whole day and plus the bowlers don't get any credit for the runout at all, the fielder does because of HIS efforts, not the bowler. And No2 is a good rule considering the amount of rules favouring bowlers today. JEEZZZZZ, bring out the old, thinner bats.

So much to disagree with:
1. I can live with it, if you return the official 12th man (set before the match starts), and the umpire rules on whether a full replacement is indeed permitted (no subbing back, of course).
2 and 3. There is already a penalty for wides/no balls. If the batsman wants to have a go at the ball for more runs - let them. If they get out it's their problem.
4. Has merits.
5. No way. If the result is known in advance of the series one team has way too much of an advantage. I would suggest that having just ONE TOSS at the begining of a series is possible, with alternating "toss winners" from then on.
6. Watching Australia field (including a sliding 36 year old Hayden 5 inches from the boundary) you realize what "athletic" means. Also, don't encourage fielders to risk life and limb sliding into the boards if they know touching the ropes means a boundary anyway.
7. This is so rare as to be of no importance.
8. That's a work in progress and I'm in favour of adding MORE definition and not less. That's what they did in baseball.
9. Who cares?
10. No way. If anything I reckon they should switch intervals around. 15 or 20 minute "morning" break when the players are still fresh, and a 40-45 minute "afternoon" break when the players need it - before a long final stretch.

The most cringe-making part of cricket for me is when umpires have to meekly agree to clearly unsporting dismissals, such as run outs when a fielder has obstructed the batsman or the batsmen have completed their run(s) and are discussing the next ball midpitch, or when batsmen are given out obstructing the field when picking the ball up to give to a close fielder. I can't believe the umpires don't have the authority to say "Don't be ridiculous, I'm not giving that out!" and must instead rely on the players being sporting enough not to ask in the first place.

Regarding the use of technology to help make decisions, I am amazed that I have never seen it suggested that technology be developed to give the *onfield* umpires access to the super slow-mo replays, snickometers, infrared cameras, hawkeye, or whatever is considered reliable enough to use.
Would it be absolutely impossible to develop a portable system (or use the big screens)?
Then you have no problem with the onfield umpires being neutered by having to defer to a third umpire, and the decision can be made by the umpire who saw it all happen in real time and knows exactly what he is looking for to clarify the decision. I find it difficult to believe that's technologically impossible.

What's all this nonsense about 71.1 cms or 72 cms. Now the Brussels mafia have allowed us (at last) to keep our traditional imperial measures, what's wrong with 28 inches?

Run-outs off no-balls: I'm sure the law as it stands allows this to happen only when a run is being attempted. The law doesn't need changing, so why change it?
'Only India, Pakistan and Bangladesh care about cricket...' Well, that's 'only' the world's second, sixth and seventh most populous countries - about 1.5billion people. As for baseball... only in the USA could the domestic competition be called the World Series. I for one can't wait for Cuba to beat them at the Olympics again.
And the one about the height of the stumps is just making up the numbers, in more ways than one. Apart from anything else, you should know by now that including a metric measurement in an article gives the Trevor Joneses of this world carte blanche to spit their coffee all over their Daily Expresses and roar something about the 'Brussels mafia' (Luca Brasi sleeps with a strictly defined quota of fishes) and 'our' imperial measures.

I feel myself swinging like a pendulum with this. At times I think that rules are rules. They are neither good nor bad, so long as both teams are subject to them.
Some laws, however, do irritate me.
THE BOUNDARY: The result in cricket is determined by the position of the BALL. If it is in the fielder's hands without touching the ground, then it is caught. If it is across the boundary, then it is 'four'. If the BALL hasn't crossed the boundary, then it is NOT 'four'. The presence of ropes, paint and markers has made sliding quite safe. At least make the ball have to cross the boundary, giving fielders reasonable opportunity to prevent it.
LEGBYES: get rid of them.
2ND POWERPLAY: should have to be after the 25th or 30th over, or in the hands of the batting team
PADDING AWAY: if batsmen don't use their bat, benefit of the doubt should go to the bowler.
LEGSIDE LBW: give umpires discretion as to whether the bowling is negative. A RH bowler bowling over the wicket to a LH batsmen is usually not bowling negatively.
NO-BALLS: Take them out of the hands of the onfield umpires (in televised matches, which usually matter the most) or bring back the back-foot rule. It would give the batsmen that extra split second to take advantage of the over-step. Also, the front foot can slide on delivery, and there is les