Five Rules I'd Change in Cricket

The use of technology in cricket has been making all sorts of headlines recently.

At current speed, Oxford Dictionary might be forced to add a cricket reference to the entry "howler."

Accusations, clarifications and all sorts of comment and opinion have been pouring in, trying to take the focus off the field. Teams want DRS to be fool-proof given the repercussions at stake and costs associated.

While the International Cricket Council ponders over the future of technology and silicone interference, here we look at some changes the MCC, the guardians of the game, can bring in as they try to evolve the sport.

Boundary or Not?

We’ve seen Kieron Pollard do it often, we saw Daniel Christian do it and we saw Shahid Afridi nearly do it. But should that be allowed?

Agility, ability and presence of mind helps some fielders pull the ball back into field after it has crossed the boundary rope going for a six or a four. There have also been amazing catches seen as a result.

The airborne fielder airborne pushes the ball back into play and steps inside the ropes before holding on to it and completing the catch. These catches depict the levels of athleticism and commitment today’s cricketers have reached.

But that effort also highlights a need for change in the laws. In the event that a ball is pulled back—having made it past the boundary line but not touching the turf—a four (or a six) should be given. The batsman has put in the required effort to make sure the ball has ‘crossed’ the rope—the prerequisite for a four or a six. Why then does he need to ensure that it also touches the turf before being rewarded?

A goal is given in football when the whole ball crosses the line even if it hasn’t touched the ground. Cricket should follow suit—the ball should only need to cross the rope.

Runout Changes

A batsman is run out if no part of his body, or his bat, is touching the ground when the bails are off.

This is the case even if the foot or the bat has been grounded once after getting back into his crease. The object of a run out is to catch the batsman short of his ground, having not made the required distance needed to be safe.

The object isn’t to nullify his effort after that requirement has been fulfilled (be it taking evasive action or just the extra burst of energy after completing a vital run).

So if a batsman touches down once inside the crease before the bails are off, that should simply suffice, fulfilling the requirement of him being safe and anything that follows—unless it’s running off an overthrow—should simply be disregarded.

A Batsman’s World

It really a the batsman’s world: limited bouncers, new balls from both ends in ODIs, fielding restrictions and the over limits for the bowlers.

With so much going for them, do batsmen really need second chances?

A batsman is allowed to stop the ball from hitting the stumps after he has played at it or it ricochets off his body and rolls/bounces towards the stumps.

If a batsman isn’t allowed to interfere in the field—obstructing a throw at the end he’s running to—why then is he allowed to deprive the bowler of a wicket?

He has already been given one chance and the fact that the ball is heading towards the stumps means that the bowler has done something right.

Say No to Overs Limit

In limited-overs cricket, a batsman gets a maximum of 50 overs (20, in a Twenty20 match) to show his worth.

Why are bowlers then restricted to a maximum of just 10 in one-day internationals and four in Twenty20s?

Is there anything better than a fired-up Dale Steyn or a cunning Saeed Ajmal? When Bhuvneshwar Kumar has the Pakistanis in a tangle or when Sunil Narine is making a mockery of the opposition, why would you want them to be confined to the boundary ropes?

Chris Gayle isn’t forced to retire in the middle of his smashing spree. Virender Sehwag stayed long enough in the middle to score that double century. Similarly, chosen bowlers—one or two per side—should be spared the over-limit, only to make the contest even and the game sweeter to watch.

Ban the Free Hits

It is the batsman vs bowler thing again with the former enjoying more leeway with rules and regulations, helping his cause of scoring more runs and hitting more boundaries.

But while a batsman gets away with a dropped catch or a slash outside off, a bowler gets penalised severely—an extra ball, an extra run and a free hit—the minute he oversteps. You don’t take away the bat and allow the bowler to hurl the ball in a baseball like manner after the batsman commits an error. Why should bowlers suffer so much for a slight stretch?

An extra run and delivery (with no dismissal possible of that no-ball too, except a run out) should be punishment enough and free hits should be done away with.