Cricket is a Better Game After the Recent Rule Changes

The ICC are constantly looking for new ways to make cricket a better game for the players and those of us watching. Two new changes, one introduced this season and the other still being trialled, have made cricket a much more enjoyable spectacle.

The tinkering of the fielding restrictions that has been ongoing for the last few years has finally found the perfect mix. This seasons splitting of the restrictions into three "Power Plays" has encouraged big hitting, especially at the tail end of the innings, and has changed the way teams approach batting in a way that satisfies crickets purists and the majority audience craving boundaries.

An innings now consists of three periods of Power Play; the first being the compulsory first 10 overs Power Play where at least two catchers must be in place and only two players are allowed outside the 30 metre circle.  The bowling and batting teams are then allocated a Power Play of five overs to be called by their respective captains at their convenience, where three players are allowed outside the circle (but no catchers are required).

The bowling teams are typically calling their Power Plays during overs 10-15, when the ball is still swinging and batters aren't.

It is the batting Power Play, however, that is sparking the fireworks. Throughout the South Africa V Australia and New Zealand vs Australia series this period of five overs has been producing roughly 10-11 runs per over in a period that would usually be reserved for accumulation of runs at 4-5 runs per over.

This has added excitement to the game in the form of boundaries and wickets as batsmen look to hit over the top.

This season also sees the trial of the "Umpire Referral," where players unhappy with an umpiring decision can refer that decision up to the third umpire who will look for any evidence to suggest the decision should be changed. This system was trialled in the New Zealand vs West Indies series, where it was given the thumbs up by umpires and players.

The number of referrals a team could make was limited by the number of unsuccessful referrals they made, in this trial it was three.

For example, a batsman is given out LBW, but believes he hit the ball with his bat and so refers the decision to the third umpire. If the third umpire finds evidence that the batsman did indeed hit the ball, he communicates that to the on-field umpire and the decision is changed to not out.

The batting team still has three unsuccessful referrals remaining.  If the third umpire had found no evidence of the batsman hitting the ball, the decision stands and the number of unsuccessful referrals remaining becomes two.

I understand the West Indies vs England series is trialling this system.  It has definitely removed those ridiculous decisions from the game and produced much fairer, accurate umpiring.

What are your thoughts and comments on it?