Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - When the Law is an ass

When Evie, my nine-year-old daughter, unexpectedly informed me of her desire to watch the final, she explained that she found rugby “fun” to watch but that, unlike cricket, she had no desire whatsoever to play it. As the game unfolded, that growing ardour was tempered. “All they do is wrestle,” she observed at length. “You don’t often see the ball, do you?” I nodded with ill-concealed satisfaction. The difference between rugby union and cricket, I explained, is not simply that one is a mite rougher than the other. It is that it is impossible, in essence, to win playing negative or even neutral cricket. The next day, I read a quote from Eddie Jones, the former Australia coach now aiding South Africa, who reasoned that NOT retaining possession of the ball was more advantageous. How perverse is that?

How reassuring, then, to read the comments of Syd Millar, chairman of the International Rugby Board, who believes his sport should be “freed up a bit” and “produce more options for players”. Even amid the glow of the most profitable RWC yet, there appears to be some evidence of objective self-analysis, of an awareness that improvement is required, even imperative. Indeed, the rules are forever being tinkered with, adapted to times and tastes. Yet for all its amoeba-like talent for self-division, cricket has been comparatively statuesque with regard to its Laws (note that hubristic capital L).

There have been just four new Codes since the original MCC model of 1788, and for all the intervening and succeeding revisions and clarifications, far too many of the fundamental elements need rephrasing, even reinventing. Much as some might reasonably strike the uninitiated as illogical, indefensible and downright offensive to the intellect, this is not exclusively about attracting and keeping converts and potential apostles. Many of us old hands are fed up with trying to rationalise the irrational.

Here, then, are 10 modest proposals, in order of priority, pressingness and, yes, annoyance:

1. Substitutes

Law 2.3 dictates that only 11 men be empowered to bat or bowl. Hell, it was only comparatively recently that the 12th was allowed to field at slip. Given the rank unfairness of an ever-fattening fixture list and the heartless, insensible refusal to permit an injured batsman or bowler to be replaced, isn’t it about time this nettle was grasped? Soccer has expanded from 11-a-side to 16, rugby union from 15-a-side to 22. Would it be that huge a climbdown for cricket to permit one substitute for each discipline?

Why should the fielding side profit from an illegality? © Getty Images

2 and 3. Stumped off a wide/Run out off a no-ball

Why should the fielding side profit from an illegality? Why should they be granted a chance to redeem themselves by dint of faulty running between the wickets or an overbalanced back foot? In both cases, the umpire’s signal should denote that, strictly in so far as the offending collective is concerned, the ball is dead. The batting side, on the other hand, should still be able to take due and just toll without fear of retribution.

4. Overthrows after ball hits stumps

Punishing the fielding side for an accurate throw? Why not penalise a batsman for being too nasty to the ball? Redraft Law 23, which governs whether or not the ball is dead: once a bail has been legally removed, it should become an ex-ball, cease to exist and nip off smartly to meet its maker.

5. Toss out the tossers

Law 12.4 gives the successful heads-or-tails caller (or, for that matter, non-caller) the right to choose whether to bat or bowl. Without wishing to cast too many aspersions, even those with a degree in naivety might acknowledge the remote possibility of collusion between the groundsman and the home team – and perhaps even a spot of coin-fixing. Eliminate any suspicion once and for all by giving the away team the inalienable right to choose, as was the case a couple of centuries back. As the Marylebone boys themselves wisely if fruitlessly proposed a few years back.

6. Boundaries

Is there any more credibility-sapping sight in sport than a fielder reaching heroically to catch a ball only to intentionally chuck it away when he realises he might topple over the boundary? Only when it’s trumped by a fielder stretching every sinew to stop a four whereupon his efforts are nullified by the touch of toe on rope. Law 19.3 states that, for a boundary to be awarded, the fielder must have “some part of his person touching the ball” and “touches boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the boundary”. Let’s get shot of the “touches boundary”. In major league baseball, where boundaries are denoted by fences and even walls, of varying heights, an outfielder is entitled to leap up and catch the ball, legally whisking it back into play, even after it has crossed the top of the barrier. Thus are practice and athleticism duly rewarded.

7. Obstruction

Are you confident about the distinction between, much less the need for, Hit The Ball Twice and Obstructing The Field? You’re not alone. I can just about comprehend why you should be allowed to hit the ball twice in defence of your wicket but not in an attempt to score. What baffles is that you are permitted to hit the ball twice in defence of your wicket, even kick it away, but not in order to prevent a catch carrying to a fielder. Let’s have some consistency here, chaps. Either it is wrong to obstruct the ball’s destiny or it isn’t. Inasmuch as both modes of dismissal seek to punish wilful interference with due process, merge Laws 34 (HTBT) and 37 (OTF) under one roof, as Obstruction, then make it enforceable whenever and however that interference is made.

8. Never mind the width

Law 6 places a restriction on the length and width of a bat, but not the thickness. Justify in light of technological advances at Slazenger and Gunn & Moore.

9. Stumps

Law 8.2 stipulates that the stumps should be 71.1cm high. If metric measurements are to have any meaning, surely they deserve the status of fullness? Make it a round 72cm and give the bowlers (and umpires) a bit more to play with.

10. Intervals

Law 15 has been left unexamined for far too long, although nowhere, it should be added, does it mention any prescribed times. Which leaves us mired in the treacherous sands of convention. Just as much as 40 minutes is a tad excessive for lunch, 20 minutes is too brief for tea. Sessions can now last the thick end of four hours. What other ballgames oblige their practitioners to spend so much time on the field at a single stretch? And don’t give me that guff about not having to run around overmuch. Energy is expended in mental as well as physical terms. Give the guys two decent breaks. Let’s set it in stone for first-class matches: 30 for lunch, 30 for tea. And, while we’re about it, let’s have no more of those nine-wickets-down = delayed tea scenarios. In a game that measures its contests in tens of hours, to fret over the saving of a few minutes is as pointless as sport gets.

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.

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.

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????

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.

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...

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.

(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.

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.

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 less error on the angle for the ump on the backfoot.
STOP captains agreeing on playing conditions before a series, such as the use of lights (may be an outdated example.)
LEGSIDE WIDES in ODIs: far too strict. Wides are defined as denying a batsman a reasonable stroke. There are lines there, use them. Any batsman worth his salt would curse himself for missing a ball that close to his legs. Don't reward his momentary lack of competence with a free run and free ball.
GIVE umpires access to replays and allow 3rd umpires authority to overrule blatantly bad decisions.
ALLOW players some emotional leeway. Dissatisfaction and disbelief do not always mean dissent.
RUNOUTS and STUMPINGS: if a batsman is out of his crease, he is fair game (ala McCullum vs Murali at Christchurch 07). The only question is: when is the ball dead?, which is much less clear.
Overall, I enjoyed the article. Modest suggestions indeed. Most of which have merit. Certainly got some feedback!

In reply to Jonathan Ellis's "No temporary substitute fielders. Sorry, Gary Pratt." - I agree with your point here, but you chose a bad example. When Gary Pratt ran out Ponting the fielder he was substituting for was Simon Jones - and since Jones didn't play a match for more than a year afterwards it seems reasonable to suppose that he really was injured. My suggestion on this would be that substitutes should be allowed to play a full part in the match - but it would be at the umpires' discretion as to whether the substitute would be allowed, and obviously they would only give permission if convinced the player was seriously injured. If the injury later turned out not to be as bad as previously thought, the injured player would not be permitted to come back into the match.

Regarding appealing, if the umpire rules that it was not out but thinks the player appealing could reasonably have considered that it might have been, and if the appeal was made in a reasonable manner, he should take no action. If the appeal was blatantly ridiculous - "lbw" when it was missing the stumps by a foot, "caught" off the thigh pad etc. - or if the fielders were blatantly attempting to intimidate the umpire, he should have the option of penalising them, say maybe 5 or 10 runs.

Introduce something similar to Hawkeye in tennis to judge no-balls, then the umpire can concentrate on what's going on at the striker's end without having to watch the bowling crease then look up in a fraction of a second.

Bear in mind, though, when advocating greater use of technology to aid the umpires, that the technology itself is not infallible. Anyone remember the occasion a few years ago when Mark Nicholas went out to the middle with a ball during the interval and held it sometimes touching the ground, sometimes not - and his fellow commentators, asked to judge from the on-screen image whether it was a clean catch or not, several times got it wrong?

To both Marcus and Lasse:

First of all guys, lets not be immature about this and call each other names. Both of you failed to recognize the the objective of the article. "How to improve the game". I am not trying to "globalise" cricket, rather i am merely pointing out why CRICKET IS NOT GLOBALISED. Why cricket has failed to invoke interest in other countries. and why cricket is slowly dying in its own countries. Soccer is the undisputed king in England, similarly Rugby has taken over Australia,Cricket is only exciting for England and Australia during the Ashes series. Cricket has faded in West Indies..the last World Cup was a complete disaster in the Caribbeans. And that is why i said..that cricket's popularity in South Asian countries do no matter, because they do not play any spectator sports other than cricket. However, now with the influx of basketball, formula 1 racing, tennis, and soccer a new generation of Indian kids in India for example are turning away from cricket and venturing their money, time, effort and excitement into other WORLD sports.

To begin Cricket has been limited to only English colonies. Where as Basketball, Baseball and Soccer have broken every boudaries and are much more acceptable and popular around the globe. I am not comparing Cricket with A SPORT..i am comparing cricket with the MOST POPULAR SPORTS. Why is it that majority of countries play soccer? why is it that baseball and basketball have successfully established themselves in countries where these sports were not even heard of 20 years ago?

Cricket on the other hand, went no where. It remained in those same 10-12 countries, which were primarily ALL English Colonies. It could never gain ground in South America, Europe, USA, and even Asian giants such as Russia, China and Japan. Cricket has remained in its small little world for decades and it will remain in those same countries, because the game is grossly mismanaged. It has no format, it has no innovation, it has no sense of direction and it obviously does not produce world class athletes that can compete with athletes in baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis etc etc. Only Australian cricket players come close to world class athletes.

Once again, think about where cricket was played 20 years ago..and where it is played now... SAME 12 COUNTRIES! ALL ENGLISH COLONIES. India is the biggest cricket market. Have you ever been to a cricket game in any Indian stadium ? It is by far the worst spectator experience. The stadiums are horrible, the organization, marketing, the "fun" factor are missing and never there. The only thing they have is a mass hysterical following by low-mid income Indian males that have only two "fun factors" in their lives. Hindi/Bollywood movies and Indian Cricket. Both of which massively dissapoint them on regular basis.

Why was Baseball and Basketball successful in China, Japan, Europe, South America, Canada, Mexico. Soccer is the most popular sport in Africa and South America. European soccer clubs have sold out games throughout europe. Even middle eastern countries are big on soccer, such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, but not cricket. Cricket has been limited to its 12 colonial countries...and with its absolute flawed format, will never succeed in going anywhere. Do you even know, that the "new generation" of Indian kids are into basketball than cricket. Indians and Pakis who are growing up in Europe and America distance themselves from cricket because it aint "cool" to be a FOB who follows cricket. Rather they want to be "cool" and be in baseball and basketball. Similar trends are obvious in many Urban Indian cities as well... where middle - upper class [Financially] Indian kids and youth are perceived as cool..if they are into soccer, basketball and formula 1 racing.

Get out of your trivial shell and read the world. You have no idea what is going on in countries. You have no idea how popular Soccer, Baseball and Basketball is in the world and how cricket is blatantly ignored and berated in the world and in cricket playing countries themselves.

My objective was to clarify that cricket is hurting because of its format, and my previous posts had some suggestions on how to change the game to not only make it exciting for cricket playing countries, but also to spread it in the world. And to begin, first thing you have to do is cut the 9 hour one day format to 35 overs..which spans for 5 hours. No sport is played for 9 hours, that is ridiculous and a waste of time.

35 overs max.
6 month season.
12-14 teams divided into 3-4 divisions.
All the teams play the same # of matches.
Teams will compete with each other in their respective divisions, by touring each other and by playing mini series, [1 on 1, Triangular etc].
Teams will compete with each other from other divisions, again either by tours or mini series.

This way every win and loss will matter. Based on Win and loss, teams will be ranked in their division. The top 2 teams from each division will then move on to Playoffs.
And then the winner from the semi-final match, will play the World Cup after the regular season and at the end of the last leg of playoffs. Thus crowing a champion every year.

This will not only create a proper format, but give countries to excel every year, as they have a chance to win the cup every year. This will also ensure that winning games is important. Right now, the mini series between Aus vs Ind had no implications. So India lost the series, now what? Next month they will go to Austrlia and win 3 games, so what? IT has no effect on the overall win-loss columns, as teams play meaningless series for 4 years.

"Berberian"

I do not dislike the sport Cricket. I love it! i grew up playing it, and I do not dislike any country. You guys are failing to understand, that the sport is the NOT the problem. It's international and domestic FORMAT and certain Rules are the crux of the problems. The reason Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, Formula 1, Nascar, have been successful in majority of the countries is because of its FORMAT, ITS PRESENTATION, ITS COMPETITION, MARKETING, ATHLETES and INNOVATION. Cricket has lacked all of this and is the primary reason for its decline in its own establishments. South Asian Countries [India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Srilanka] account for 75% + viewership and revenue for Cricket, because first they do not play any other sport and if they do, they are horrible at it. A minor Twenty-20 victory by India, does not surmount to countless #'s of losses the Team and the Nation has endured every month. England and Australia may lose big games, but its sports watching audience has other sports to look forward to, where the country might win. This keeps the balance. In cricket playin Asian countries, the crowd has no other outlet, and therefore they riot, burn effigies, hurt players and create mass chaos when their team suffers a loss. However, this attitude can be changed, first by introduction other sports, so the audience can divert its attention from one loss in one sport to a victory in another. Second, by changing the format of cricket, both International and Domestic games. This coupled with better stadiums, spectator experience, marketing, promos etc..can change the average fan experience at a game, so as to diffuse the anger from a loss, into some sort of satisfaction by their overall experience at the game and or on television.

Implicx

Thank you for clarifying your point, and I apologise if I caused offence- that was not my intent. You do make a couple of good points regarding the format, however there are already many concerns over player burnout which will only be exacerbated with a hectic 6 month season. I think a better idea- one which has been put forward a number of times- is to have two tiers, whereby the bottom Test team of Tier One gets relegated to Tier 2, and the top team of Tier Two would get promoted. This could get based around a two-year period, which would have three main advantages: 1) the teams have enough of a rest period between series, 2) it will promote agressive cricket as teams try to rack up victories (although this isn't currently much of a problem) and 3) will promote more competitiveness from teams like Kenya and Ireland as they try to break into Test cricket.

And no, I've never been to an Indian cricket stadium, but as a matter of principle the organisers of the games have to treat their customers with respect.

However, when you say that cricket is still played in the same 12 countries as it was 20 years ago, I have to disagree with that. The ICC has over 100 members. The game seems to spreading notably in several African countries, Afghanistan and China, and even seems to be experiencing a resurgence in places like Cuba. If you look at the teams involved in the final of the World Cricket League, Argentina and Uganda, nine of the Argentine team were born in Argentina, and all of the Ugandans were born in Uganda. Now, I know what you're thinking- that other sports, like soccer, are more popular than cricket in those countries, right? RIGHT! Soccer's always going to be more popular than cricket. But cricket still has a presence in far more countries than you'd expect.

And just another example- look at the Rugby World Cup, where 24 countries took part, despite the fact that only nine of them play Test Rugby on a regular basis. Of course an international match between Namibia and Portugal is going to get no more publicity than a cricket match between Argentina and Uganda, but it does demonstrate that it's easy to underestimate a game's presence based on the small number of top teams.

You are right Marcus. ICC does have a presence in many countries. But the reason they will have a harder time, is because of their management and cash flow. BCCI [Indian cricket board] takes up all the money, and these people have done nothing in India, so forget about helping other countries.

One thing needs to be noted, that for any game to get foothold in a country, domestic play is very important. English county games are the only proper domestic series in England [Cricket wise] that has survived. India has a horrible domestic format. Not a single soul is at a stadium when Bombay is playing New Delhi for example. If cricket has to succeed, then the domestic organization and competition as to be encouraged and formulated. Only then, you pick the best players for the national team, who can compete with Australia, South Africa etc. And like i mentioned, that the format has to change. Overs need to be reduced to around 35 so as to eliminate atleast 3 hours from the game. I think it is important to have more than 12 teams that compete in international events, this gives more exposure to the game and also gives new countries a chance to be part of a World Sport. Cricket has good potential to succeed on many fronts, but you have to question the people leading this charge. I think they are shortsighted, they do not have a proper plan, they are not willing to experiment with the games format. Twenty-20 was good, no doubt, but it is just one tournament. I think because of Indian's overpowering dominance in the game, in terms of ad revenues and viewership, people are basking in glory of its success. But imagine if India and Pakistan were eliminated, just like they were in the world cup at an early stage, and Australia would have won the twenty-20 tournament, what would be the response?

Last thing.. you cannot have a game, where one team utterly dominates for a decade. That is too much. 12 years domination by Australia! That is the reason i said, that let the world cup happen every year or every two years. So atleast teams have a chance to compete and maybe win the crown frequently, as suppose to wait 4 years and then lose it all to Australia again. Sport needs variety and a new winner, if not the first 2-3 times..definitely the 4th time. Otherwise local interest dwindles.

Implicx,
still you don't seem to understand that nobody here cares about baseball or basketball ,this is a cricket forum. you should get out of your trivial shell and read the world. You still didn't answer why it is OK for Caribbean countries to be included as one of your baseball or basketball 'franchises' for want of a better word, but not for cricket. And you still don't seem to accept that as cricket is played in a diverse mix of countries from all corners of the globe, a 6 month tournament is useless because different countries have different seasons. As I said, you are clearly American, through your obsession with basketball and baseball (which are not exactly massive in the countries you mention, only those where the US has had some sort of 'influence' quelle surprise (the same argument you use with cricket), and sadly mistaken idea that they are actually very popular globally, and the fact that you call football soccer. In that case I excuse your ignorance of the subtleties of cricket and naivety to think that the only good thing would be world domination and homogenised globalisation. Also, the last time I was in India, did I see anyone playing basketball? No, i watched hundreds of games of cricket, mostly involving schoolchildren using a pile of rubble as a wicket etc, i even played a few games. I also played football for a local Delhi team, no-one mentioned basketball.
You dismiss many countries, such as England, Australia and South Africa for playing other sports as well, is there any one country in the world that only plays, watches and follows one sport? As for India and Pakistan, I may be wrong but I think the actual national sport of both countries is field hockey, regardless of the overpowering popularity of cricket.
This thread is discussing some small rule changes in the game. No one is stating that the World Cup was not a disaster, but your suggestions would produce something even more disastrous.
Didn't you ever hear the joke about the World Series? That no-one else in the world had heard of it.

alsch: you dont read properly.

I never said that the entire country is playing basketball. In fact i said that mid-upper income class families in India, where kids and the youth have access to facilities, which in India are always hidden. You will never find a random basketball court, rather these courts exist in confined walls, which sadly are given access to rich kids only. The point with that was that as more kids in the country get exposed to other sports, they find it "cooler" to shun cricket.

This is strictly a ODI format change. A 6 month period does not mean that teams are playing games every day or every week. A test series can very well fit in the mix, while teams are touring each other. The idea is to play the exact # of games at the end of the 6 months. Maybe those exact # of games is 40. 6 months, would amount to approx 200 days.. 40 total games, gives enough room to play not only test series, but even rest days as well.

Dont give me no bullshit about burn out. International athletes are paid to compete and play at least any sport for a min or max 5 month period in a calender year. Baseball teams play 162 games each EVERY 6 months!

MEN football is not popular in US. However women football is extremely popular. And the reason men football is not very popular, is because US has established sports franchises in Baseball, Basketball, American Football, Ice Hockey, College Football, basketball, baseball. Along with Olympic sports, like swimming, cycling. Along with all this, they have tons of kids who are into X-games, skateboarding, biking, snow boarding.

As for me using the example of Caribbean countries, then why dont you answer this question. What is more popular in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Central american countries etc. Is it cricket or baseball?? It is baseball. And many reasons attribute towards it..like closer to mainland US etc.

For implicx: (and others)
McDonalds has a global strategy and a world market. That does not make what it sells good food.
Cricket has survived for a 1000 years since first played by shepherd boys. The longevity of the game has given it eccentricities and odd rules but the purpose is to be fair. It is the only game which is admired for its sense of fair play despite human frailities and exceptions. Cricket is loved because it is part sport part art form. Test cricket was compared by CLR James to ancient Greek theatre. The history in cricket is deep and each century has left its mark. It is not just a world sport it is an archive of human development. A great many nations are adding their own characteristics to the sport. The last century saw the development of stroke play, of batsmen who thrilled crowds with the beauty of classic elegant cover drives etc. Hard to explain to a basket ball/baseball fan but aesthetics play a huge role in cricket which makes the game enjoyable to watch whatever the result. By the way, cricket fans really enjoy a day out at a game, take picnics, have a drink, even a snooze, it is very relaxed as well as completely engrossing. A game which can change materially from one ball to the next is utterly fascinating. Even when the end result is no longer in doubt, though that is hard to say in cricket with its mysterious collapses and last wicket stands, there is always the sub-text of each player's career or position in the team or particular rivalries between bat and bowler, or brilliant fielding which deserves applause. Endlessly fascinating to the initiate. Characters in five day Test Series, for example, loom large, it is theatre or even soap opera when you know the whole picture. I would say try harder but I think you have already sold your soul to the global market. Each country has its own glories like its cuisine, its sports, its arts. Why exactly are you trying to make cricket like baseball?
I am not one to write off the last ODI World Cup which seems to be fashionable. I watched some heart-warming riveting games. The Irish were wonderful to go so far. It was great to see the minnows in action. I think too much favouritism blighted the English, Indian, and Pakistan fans when their teams failed. If anything is destructive to cricket it is the recent trend to rubbish any team that doesn't win a knock-out competition. By any logic that makes a lot of very miserable people. I thought the Rugby World Cup managed to avoid that by the way. There seemed to be genuine sportsmanship and appreciation of other teams among the rugby fans. If knock-out competitions are played in that spirit then we can all enjoy sport more. It wasn't that long ago that English football fans adored watching Brazil in their World Cup. I don't know how the World Series is run in America. How does it rate for sportsmanship?

Jackie wrote "It is the only game which is admired for its sense of fair play despite human frailities and exceptions. Cricket is loved because it is part sport part art form."

haha you are so stupid. Mired in your own ignorance. Every sport is special to its own audience, the generation of kids playing it, the history, the stadiums, the cities.

A baseball fan will claim the same thing, so will be a football fan and so will a tour de france fan.

I do not want to waste more time on this, because lets face it, people who actually go to cricinfo.com and then click on blogs and then read these blogs and comment on it, are all cricket fans. Probably all of you are die hard cricket fans and are blinded by its allure. You guys have rejected how other sports are more popular, more organized, more competitive than cricket, based on your preconceived [read--> misguided] assumptions.

Australia has dominated cricket for 10 years. A freaking decade. Zimbabwe, Kenya, Bangladesh will go nowhere. They might win few games, but will most likely never win a championship. West Indies has faded. Srilanka..haha do you really think that country should worry about cricket or Tamil terrorist "tigers" and political instability.

India and Pakistan are all hype, because they have a large viewing audience, but both the teams cant win big games. England is more concerned with football than cricket. Btway National Football League [American Football] is playing game in the SOLD-OUT Wembley stadium in England on Oct 28th.

South Africa is hosting FIFA cup and as for Australia they will dominate for another 10 years.

I am not an Australian.

I will leave you guys to cherish this sport, which is drastically flawed in its format and presentation. 9 hour games! haha what a joke.. just to let you know ..i love cricket. I grew up playing it..and that is why i want to see it change because change is perpetual and with innovation it IMPROVES the overall outcome. Otherwise cricket will be like Islam, a religion which has refused to change with times and we all know how Islamic cultures, countries and societies have turned out.

Implicx,

As I said in my first post, you are clearly a stump short of a wicket. Now that you realise your insane ideas and championing of US niche sports have not been embraced in the way you anticipated you are reduced to pettiness, you are the misguided one here I am afraid.
And what have the "Tamil terrorist tigers" got to do with cricket? apart from the fact that the reality is far from the govt-biased reporting in the news, is this another of your political/economic basis for disqualifying teams, only if it suits you. Can I then disqualify the US from Basketball and baseball because of 9/11? India and Pakistan are all hype? India just posted a series win in England, first team to do so for years, and won the Twenty20, who did they beat in the final? It was not Pakistan was it?
England may be more concerned with football than cricket, but who is to say you can only like one sport? And as for your 'SOLD-OUT' quote? do you think that actually means anyone in England is actually aware that there is an NFL game, and do you not think that ODI's in England sell out? Take the last ODI against India at Lords for instance, sold out for months.
I am glad you will leave us, do I really have to re-iterate that you seem to be the only person with a problem with 9 hour games, or five day games for that matter.
Take your evening class MBA, thoughts on globalisation and Americentric views on sports somewhere else.
Oh, and the last 'witty' remark about Islam is about as relevant as if I would write 'English people like cheese, thats why they lost the RWC'.

Please dont talk about "Americentric" views. Did you forget history my friend? What "Eurocentric" ways did to humanity for 300 + years, made the entire wold its slave for mass rape and greed. From India, Africa to South America, slaves to those damm colonist. 300 + years! Every nations has it flaws, including the country you reside. America is no way perfect and does a lot of good and harm around the globe, but your country aint no saint either. And if you actually believe that a 9 hour game is practical, then you are the one who is completely out of sanity.

What do you regular fans play for recreation? A 9 hour 50 over game ? No kids and youth in every country play the shorter version. People have been playing 20, 25 or 30 overs games for years, because it is more practical, easy to organize, maintain and compete.

Please do not compare Srilanka with United States. Tamil tigers in Srilanka is a national crisis. They entire country is in a war-zone of some sort. USA is nothing like that.

Did you actually see the India vs England games. They were sold out by Indian supporters. In fact most international games and cricket playing colonies, have a very sizable South Asian population that forms the majority of the cricket playing and viewing audience.

The problem is you guys refuse to accept change and refuse to recognize anything which in your trivial world is remotely "American".

India's victory on England and the Twenty-20 championship is trivial compared to a decade of losses. Compare the total wins to total losses. Compare the total series, ODI, test wins to total losses and you will get the clear picture of how dismal India has been in the last 5-6 years.

NFL game sold out in london was to refer that a 90,000 strong wembley stadium was sold out. Now would a Cricket Match in China ever sell out? No ! But basketball Matches in China, which just concluded last weeek were all sold out. Yes your capitalist "americentric" game, basketball, has become the most popular sport in a Communist country, China.

I never said you can only like one sport, I said India, Pakistan, Srilanka, Bangladesh only like one sport [mass majority] and the reason is because they do not have access and exposure to other sports.

Like i said, you are a cricket fan, that is why you are here on this website and this blog and you refuse to accept any criticism of cricket and its completely flawed format and its diminishing popularity in England, Australia, West Indies, South Africa. As for India, upper-rich income Familes have their kids enrolled in basketball and tennis coaching but not cricket. Cities like Calcutta are hugely popular with football or should i use my "americentric" capitalist, world globalized term "soccer".

haha you are fool.

my example of Islam, was to show that when something becomes static, with austere practices, rigidity in its format and its unwillingness to change with times.. it spells its own misery. Islam obviously will not die as a religion, not anytime, maybe never.. but its rigidity has created enough problems for its own merit, the people who embrace it, the countries that run on it.

The state of current Cricket is exactly like that. Super rigid format, no room for change, no room for innovation, no room for acceptance to change ti the current times, where fans need a 4-5 hour max sport, not 9 hour. Where spectator experience needs to be enhanced, where the game itself needs some radical changes in its format. Forget the organizers, the fans, YOU FOOLS.. are refusing to accept changes or wanting changes.

"do I really have to re-iterate that you seem to be the only person with a problem with 9 hour games, or five day games for that matter."

haha 9 hour game! Twenty-20 is popular precisely for this reason. Quick game, quick results. Maybe it is not the ideal, but it was atleast an attempt by the fans to prove you idiots that 9 hour is too long.

Remember, the game has begun its decline, new generation of kids are moving away from cricket. The trend started in England. Australia is right there. West Indies is a no show, evident from the world cup. Millions of Kids in India are doing the same thing, moving away from cricket and marching towards formula 1 racing, basketball, football, tennis... if you do not believe this, then you are the one who is not in touch with reality...oops there goes gravity.