The Cricketer begins its series compiling which areas of the sport need a re-think. MARK BALDWIN kicks off with three regulations which need erasing from the rulebook
Am I allowed three wishes?
In my defence, they are all wrapped up into one big wish: can we PLEASE get rid of the three daftest laws in cricket?
I know others will undoubtedly have their own little ‘hit list’, because cricket is that sort of game; it has generated regular heated debate, and very often controversy, since shepherds (reportedly) played bat and ball on the Kent and Sussex Weald several centuries ago.
So here are my three bugbears, in order of equal importance.
First, in ALL forms of cricket, if a brilliant piece of fielding results in the stumps being broken by a direct hit, then NO overthrows should be allowed if the successful throw does not result in a batsman being run out.
Is Ben Stokes barging into the Big Four? TEST MATCH TALKING POINTS
In other words, if the stumps are hit, a ‘dead ball’ shall be called by the umpires. How often have we seen the ball careering off at an angle, after breaking the stumps, and beating a fielder who has sprinted into the right position to back up the throw?
It is penalising teams, and the individual players involved, for great skill. It is daft. (Obviously, however, if the throw misses – and is not successfully backed up – then overthrows will be allowed. That’s because you don’t reward failure!)
Second, in ALL forms of cricket but ESPECIALLY in short-form and limited-overs’ games, ANY ball bowled above the knee of a batsman standing upright in the crease is to be called a NO-BALL.
At the moment, it has to be above waist-high to be called as such, and it is DAFT. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen batsmen given out when they have spliced up into the air an attempted swipe at a fast full toss that would have hit them squarely in the solar plexus.
You don’t need to have played to any high standard of cricket to know just how difficult it is to hit a high full toss arrowing in on your ‘abdominal area’.
Is it right that the fielding team is punished for executing a fine piece of skill?
It is the bowlers who need to be penalised for anything above the knee, whereas at the moment it is often the batsmen who pay the penalty. And, in tight T20 or other one-day contests, a wicket unfairly taken with a full toss at thigh/waist height can be the difference between a team winning or losing.
Third, can we PLEASE reduce further the weight of bats? It is patently ridiculous (no, let’s say DAFT again!) that mis-hits now regularly fly for six (not helped by some stupidly short boundaries, it must be acknowledged) and so this too needs outlawing.
The art of batsmanship – whether at Test, first-class or limited-overs level – should be primarily about timing and not about sheer naked power. Big hitters like Chris Gayle, Carlos Brathwaite or Ben Stokes will still clear the ropes quite easily if they connect properly while wielding bats much less railway sleeper-like than the ones they are currently allowed to swing.
More to the point, actually, is why huge, heavy bats also allow so many lesser talents to smite six after six. It’s getting really boring.
OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR ROOM 111
Subscribe to The Cricketer this Christmas and receive a £20 John Lewis voucher or Alastair Cook’s autobiography. Claim your free gift here
Posted by Marc Evans on 27/11/2019 at 02:04
First came across the bat weight issue at a benefit game in the 1970's when chatting to Dennis Amiss. He had arms and wrists like tree trunks and could handle a 4lb bat with ease. Indeed he was even able to incorporate an ordinary backlift into his technique, which maybe have been an Achilles heel for him against pace, whereas most players using similar weight bats, notably then Gooch and Lamb, stood with bat aloft, so buying them extra time against pace. The heavier a bat is undeniably the larger the sweet spot, so even mishits can clear the ropes, but it needs a well developed strength. This is epitomised in baseball, where most of the batters look like bouncers, having spent so much time in the gym. Even Root has put on muscle here to be more effective as a white ball hitter. The down side to this is that it reduces finesse, as its more difficult to manipulate a heavy bat, especially over time, so scoring opportunities are reduced. Personally I always preferred a lighter bat as I felt more in control. A heavier bat has an increased momentum whilst playing a shot and it's much more difficult to either pull out or alter it once youve started it. There is a natural limit to the general effectiveness of a bat and it depends on whether you are a hitter or an accumulator, so I don't think having a maximum weight is as fair an option as you imply. There are definite disadvantages to a heavier bat that for me even up the odds. Don't mind free hits for no balls in white ball as the game is designed for a different audience with rules to increase the immediate drama. Totally agree with dead ball being called once the ball has hit the stumps though. Can't believe we're still having to debate this one.
Posted by Neil Smith on 26/11/2019 at 17:46
I agree with all these. I'd add getting rid of the free hit for a no ball. No balls are penalised already, why add a disproportionate punishment that bears no relation to the crime ? At least it doesn't apply in first class cricket (yet....).
Posted by Brian Springall on 26/11/2019 at 13:15
I totally agree with your first point & have been advocating this for some time. With regard to your third point you make comment about "Stupidly short boundaries". I believe that Sky insist on the boundaries being brought in so that the viewing public can see "what they want to see" - more 6s & 4s.!!
Posted by John Ward on 26/11/2019 at 13:14
I definitely support 1 and 3, and 2 will need a bit of thought. My suggestion concerns the times when a batsman drives a ball back down the pitch, the ball bounces fortuitously off any part of the bowler, hits the stumps and the non-striker, who has been correctly backing up, is freakishly run out while doing the right thing. I say that this should only be given out if the knock-on is clearly a DELIBERATE act of the bowler and not a mere accident. In all the instances I have seen of this happening, it has always been clear to me whether it was intentional or accidental, so unless the umpire is diving for cover he should have little difficulty in judging on that.
Posted by Timothy Mullen on 26/11/2019 at 13:14
Wholeheartedly agree with all of the above; I remember as a youngster listening to the great Richie arguing the exact same point about a dead ball being called when the ball hits the stumps.
Posted by Tony Evans on 26/11/2019 at 13:07
I totally agree with deleting all 3 of these 'daft' situations! I would certainly agree making the bats a standard weight together with expanding the boundaries to a regulation distance, instead of these artificially short boundaries, which do nothing to enhance the game. I also agree entirely that the concept of 'see ball - hit ball = 6 is getting extremely tiresome and boring. Those batters who are sufficiently talented/experienced will still manage to accumulate sixes with a standard weight bat. (A Cricketer magazine subscriber and frustrated Middlesex supporter!)
Posted by Murray Hedgcock on 26/11/2019 at 12:59
I absolutely agree with Mark Baldwin's proposal for a dead ball when the stumps are hit; reject his idea of a no-ball called for anything above knee-height (he no doubt meant any ball on the full - which is not exactly what he wrote); and approve the return to bats of modest weight. I add one further adjustment: legbyes should be scrapped. Why should a batsman, having played a false shot and missed the ball, be rewarded with runs if it hits him and evades the field? Totally unfair!
Posted by Paul on 26/11/2019 at 12:47
Can't really argue with any of these - although maybe it should be above stump high full toss
Posted by kjb on 26/11/2019 at 12:32
Sorry, I don't agree with your first wish. Nowadays, if a batsman is struck with the ball following a run out attempt, the batsman usually declines a further run. Why? Any attempt at a run out is just that. It is irrelevant what happens to the ball subsequently. If the fielder throws and misses the stumps by a whisker and the ball then goes for overthrows, surely that is part of the game. If it hits the stumps and ricochets elsewhere so be it; it was an attempt to get a wicket. I should prefer a dead ball being called following any collision between a batsman and bowler/fielder when there is no chance of either a run being scored or a run out.
Welcome to www.thecricketer.com - the online home of the world’s oldest cricket magazine. Breaking news, interviews, opinion and cricket goodness from every corner of our beautiful sport, from village green to national arena.