| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lazzadesilva 
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
|
| Post subject: Question about a disparity in cricket laws |  |
|
Why is it that a bowler who goes off injured can only bowl again under the conditions that have been back on the ground for the exact time they were off, however a batter who retired hurt can return to batting without such a condition 🤔
PS Also a batter has to take the huge risk of making their injury worse by not being allowed to have a runner. The paying customer misses out of watching an injured batter bat due to them not being allowed to have a runner 🙄 I know that this was the “Ranatunga” rule but he retired years ago and the authorities should revisit this issue. After all, they stopped calling Murali for chucking after they tweaked the rules to allow up to 15 degrees of elbow bending while bowling. Time for the runner ruling to change.
_________________
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm ☔️ |
|
|
|
 |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: Re: Question about a disparity in cricket laws | |
|
| lazzadesilva wrote: | | I know that this was the “Ranatunga” rule but he retired years ago and the authorities should revisit this issue. ... |
Why would ya think Ranatunga would be the only one to abuse the rules?
In tennis, if cramp's so bad you can't continue, you default the match. |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname 
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: Re: Question about a disparity in cricket laws | |
|
| lazzadesilva wrote: | Why is it that a bowler who goes off injured can only bowl again under the conditions that have been back on the ground for the exact time they were off, however a batter who retired hurt can return to batting without such a condition 🤔
PS Also a batter has to take the huge risk of making their injury worse by not being allowed to have a runner. The paying customer misses out of watching an injured batter bat due to them not being allowed to have a runner 🙄 I know that this was the “Ranatunga” rule but he retired years ago and the authorities should revisit this issue. After all, they stopped calling Murali for chucking after they tweaked the rules to allow up to 15 degrees of elbow bending while bowling. Time for the runner ruling to change. |
How would you make a batsman return to the ground for the length of time he was off before he resumed batting? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So a retired-hurt batter should be forced to field for the oppo before being allowed to bat again.  |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That'll stop cricketers exploiting the rule I guess, but opens up a whole new problem.
If that player intentionally drops a catch, are they then guilty of match fixing? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| If they drop a catch, the robbed bowler is allowed to bowl 6 bouncers an over like in the good old days. |
|
|
|
|
lazzadesilva
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
|
| Post subject: Re: Question about a disparity in cricket laws | |
|
| What'sinaname wrote: | | lazzadesilva wrote: | Why is it that a bowler who goes off injured can only bowl again under the conditions that have been back on the ground for the exact time they were off, however a batter who retired hurt can return to batting without such a condition 🤔
PS Also a batter has to take the huge risk of making their injury worse by not being allowed to have a runner. The paying customer misses out of watching an injured batter bat due to them not being allowed to have a runner 🙄 I know that this was the “Ranatunga” rule but he retired years ago and the authorities should revisit this issue. After all, they stopped calling Murali for chucking after they tweaked the rules to allow up to 15 degrees of elbow bending while bowling. Time for the runner ruling to change. |
How would you make a batsman return to the ground for the length of time he was off before he resumed batting? |
I worded it wrong, my bad 🥺 I’ll try again. If a batter (eg. Warner) retired hurt an hour before stumps, should they be able to resume first up the next morning or have to wait at least an hour before they are allowed to resume batting after an opportunity arose? In the above example, a bowler will be required to field for an hour before getting to bowl again. Is this yet another example of the laws of cricket favouring batters or is this a logical thing to allow batters to do?
_________________
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm ☔️ |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
An injured bowler could resume bowling the instant they are ready to return to the game which is why there is a compulsory waiting period.
Injured batters have to wait for a wicket to fall before they can return, which could be a very long wait. It is swings and roundabouts, sometimes they get to return early and other times they may have to wait longer, but on average it probably evens out.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The problem (re. bowlers) is how to stop cheating ala England in 2006.
Fast bowler finishes spell, immediately leaves field to rest. Serial cheater (and allegedly racist* grub) Vaughan knows exactly when he wants them to bowl again, so they just return to the field halfway between planned spells.
A bit like the AFL medisub stuff, I guess. Get team doctor to sign off?
* See Yorkshire racism allegations in other thread. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lotta debate now about the laws for boundary catches, following Neser's Slogathon catch.
Neser, Renshaw, Hazlewood,... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Debate about boundary catches was drowned out by renewed debate about Mankading...
The unusual thing about the boundary catch rule is that it favours the fielder. As cluey folks have pointed out, every controversial rule seems to favour the batters.
And as cluey folks also point out, everyone was taught in school how to back up at the non-striker's end so you don't get run out. (Trail your bat, etc.) Look at the pros now!! None of them gives a s*** about what we were all taught. They just wander out of their crease. They're a metre out of the crease when the ball is delivered. No bat in the crease. And then they make up crazy s*** to claim it's unfair if you run them out!
Good ol' Zampa tried to Mankad a Slogathon opponent. They checked whether he was warning or appealing for a wicket. I'm appealing for a wicket, he said. TV review. Not out. I just got the execution wrong, Zampa said later.
In another Slogathon, Dan Christian bowled the second-last over. He stopped his action. "This is your final warning," he told the non-striker. Next ball... he bowled the guy on strike! In the dressing room, the guy on strike might've complained that his batting partner got him out by disrupting Christian's delivery just before!
Maybe I'll start a separate Mankad thread... |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
