2 and 5 don't look like new rules anyway. Do they?For 5, there is only a tradition to warn the non striker before running him out.Courtney Walsh had set a great example by not running out Salim Jaffer of Pakistan in a significant match ( I think WC). WI could have won the match by running the non striker out as he was the last bat. The went on to loose the match and Walsh's sporting spirit was praised.Kapil Dev had once warned Peter Kirsten (I think elder bro of Garry) a couple of times before running him out at non striker's end. This had triggered heated exchange between the two.
-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
Latest updates to One Day International Rules
- Thread starter Sushubh
- Start date
- Replies 21
- Views 2,869
MonsterBallsofDoom
Crotch Shot Expert
+1 to the "no-runner allowed" rule.
C'mon, why wud they add the same entry twice in the rulebook? Till now u cud dismiss a batsman in these ways, but when u dismissed in that way, it was termed against the spirit of the game. Thats why u had bowlers giving warnings, before they ran out the non-striker.And for obstructing the field, i still remember the 2006 Tour of India to Pakistan.......1st ODI Feb 6. Inzy had been adjudged out in that way & Pakis were cursing Indian team for appealing for "Obstructing the field"
Till now u cud dismiss a batsman in these ways,
That's it. You could dismiss them this way, simply means they are existing rules.
I really don't know whether there is any authentic ICC communication (not a media created hype about these) saying that these are new rules. Even if so, it could be that some fine print changed somewhere.
----------
Even if so, it could be that some fine print changed somewhere.
Just checked. Yes, it is a fine print change.
E.g. India-England series to be played under new ICC rules : Cricket: News India Today shows the difference between new and old rule.
Two things have changed: Point of bowling action till the bowler could run the non striker out and that if run out happens the ball won't be counted.
That's it. You could dismiss them this way, simply means they are existing rules.
I really don't know whether there is any authentic ICC communication (not a media created hype about these) saying that these are new rules. Even if so, it could be that some fine print changed somewhere.
----------
Even if so, it could be that some fine print changed somewhere.
Just checked. Yes, it is a fine print change.
E.g. India-England series to be played under new ICC rules : Cricket: News India Today shows the difference between new and old rule.
Two things have changed: Point of bowling action till the bowler could run the non striker out and that if run out happens the ball won't be counted.
Rule of running non-striker out was scrapped few year's back.. Its now reimplemented. I dont understand why though.
Quite unlikely that it was scrapped as not having such rule would give undue advantage to batting side. Do you have any link that says so?
The rule was always there. It has just been made a little stricter as the link in post 16 describes.
Quite unlikely that it was scrapped as not having such rule would give undue advantage to batting side. Do you have any link that says so?
The rule was always there. It has just been made a little stricter as the link in post 16 describes.
Well MCC has rights to alter the laws of cricket.
I cant find out exact article which states that MCC scrapped it but if you see the following article from CRICINFO, it clearly talks abt bringing the same rule back!
So it indirectly means that the rule of allowing bowler to RUNOUT non-striker before delivery was scrapped at some point of time in the past and cricinfo wanted it back.
Cricinfo XI: Laws that need changing | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Disallow backing up
The running out of a non-striker was, for some odd reason, always deemed unsporting, but attempts by the batsman to steal ground on the fielding side are not?
...
it is utterly inconsistent to allow the non-striker to gain an advantage of this magnitude."
When the MCC decided the non-striker could not be run out it inadvertently legitimised cheating.
...
A bad law change not thought through. Reverse it and let the umpire decide if a batsman has genuinely been hard done by.
----------
Also if you think, why wud they say "new laws or change in laws", if that rule existed currently?? So as I said (and by memory) the rule was scrapped but now they have brought it back and hence termed as "law/rule changes"
I cant find out exact article which states that MCC scrapped it but if you see the following article from CRICINFO, it clearly talks abt bringing the same rule back!
So it indirectly means that the rule of allowing bowler to RUNOUT non-striker before delivery was scrapped at some point of time in the past and cricinfo wanted it back.
Cricinfo XI: Laws that need changing | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Disallow backing up
The running out of a non-striker was, for some odd reason, always deemed unsporting, but attempts by the batsman to steal ground on the fielding side are not?
...
it is utterly inconsistent to allow the non-striker to gain an advantage of this magnitude."
When the MCC decided the non-striker could not be run out it inadvertently legitimised cheating.
...
A bad law change not thought through. Reverse it and let the umpire decide if a batsman has genuinely been hard done by.
----------
Also if you think, why wud they say "new laws or change in laws", if that rule existed currently?? So as I said (and by memory) the rule was scrapped but now they have brought it back and hence termed as "law/rule changes"
