Potential New Rules

[Roasty]

As the league rep for Theydon Bois I voted for 2 balls per game for the 1st Division. I think that in our top division it makes a big difference for our stronger teams and the cost should not be prohibitive. For the other divisions I would advocate no change

As for 30M markers again it might be something that could be trailed, but may cause more problems for the umpires. I just feel that it is one rule that could again lead to potential controversy in matches ‘ was he or was he not within the 30M line when the ball was delivered and subsequently caught’. We already have the ‘nightmare’ of LBW’s, which is part and parcel of the game.

Bonus Points – Why change something that has worked well for so long. Every one knows the rules, and you will probably get the same number of clubs affected adversely as would benefit under any change.

[andrewshields]

1. This has been up for discussion every year we've been in the league. I thought the policy agreed at the last AGM was to trial this year's new improved ball for a set period using only one per match before reopening the debate. Can't remember how long the set period was, though! If the debate about two balls per match does start again, then we should consider the option of 'two balls per match' rather than 'one ball per innings', giving the team bowling second the option of starting with a new ball or continuing wiith the old one until such time as they decide to take the new ball.

2. Don't think this has come up before. Certainly down in Divs 4/5 there's no such negativity. And our policy is always to bat first... It's an interesting idea, though.

As for other potential rule changes, the one about games in the higher division taking priority when a team has to cry off has been proposed by Potter St and seconded by us.

Anyone want to put together a proposal re points changes? Since the long debate on the subject didn't arrrive at any definite conclusions, how about reducing a win to 20 points, 8 apiece for a postponement, 8 apiece + bonus points for an abandonment and 10 apiece plus bonus points for a scores-level tie?

[andrewshields]

Sorry, I thought you meant imposing fielding restrictions for, say, the first 15 overs of an innings rather than right through. But isn't putting men on the boundary at the end of an innings part and parcel of limited overs cricket? Isn't the skill at this point of an innings for the batters to put the ball in the gaps and run rather than only try to blast fours and sixes? After all, six twos is better than a six, a four and four wild swishes...

[ginster]

My thoughts...

30M rule: Think it would cause mroe trouble than it is worth. I'm with Roasty on this, I think the umpiring gets enough controversy as it is, without the need for introducing something else.

2 Balls: I'm definitely in favour of this, but have never really heard the resonas why we don't use them. I know it has been debated before, but I've never really heard both sides of the argument. But as a bowler for white roding,( who almost invariably bat first, given the opportunity), I'm not a great fan of opening the bowling with a ball thats already gone for 300 runs!!

Points changes; For me, you only have to look at div 1 to see that he current system works. I don;t think it should be changed. I've made my views on this clear before, but basically, I think that you shouldn;t try and introduce too much complexity into what is fundamentally a simple game.

[Sammy]

I thought I would put these up for debate before the end of the season, after which the number of people logging on to the website may reduce:

1. Two new balls per game - 1 per innings. I always perceive that the side batting first has a several overs disadvantage through having to face a new ball. In Div 1, over 65% of games are won by the side batting second, i.e. the one facing a ball that is 45 overs old. No wonder everyone elects to bowl first. If cost is not an issue (and I understand it was not when this was last discussed by HECL) then why have this imbalance?

2. The 30 meter fielding markers, in which a minimum of 4 fielders (plus bowler and WK) must be at the time of delivery. We play strictly limited overs cricket so why not invoke what is standard in most limited over cricket and rid ourselves of the regular negativity of sticking nine fielders on the boundary? (which as every one in Div 1 knows, I can't clear!! :lol:) We may have to decide whether 30 meters is too far for some of our smaller ground and maybe 25 is more appropriate, but cost wise it should not be prohibitive?

Please give your thoughts on these.
Sammy.

[Sammy]

Thanks for your comments.

30 metre rule
Andrew - So you don't come across situations where, say, 10+ runs per over are required off the last few overs and 9 fielders are on the boundary; or the last few overs in the first innings when the batting team are scoring at 10+ per over? It happens all the time in Div 1 and the 30 metre rule was introduced to stop this practice in limited over cricket, to good effect. Roasty - I take your point, but at least it is the square-leg umpire who looks at this, in the same way that he currently checks that there are not 3 fielders behind square leg - no difference really.

2 balls
I am not fully aware of the history on the 2 ball debate. I think this year's ball is an improvement on previous year's - but that misses the point. Which is, that it should be the same for both teams and that can only be achieved by a new ball for each team at the start of an innings.

[tro]

I agree with the comments from Roasty on the fielding restrictions. Like he mentioned, umpiring is already a hot cause for debate and disagreement and adding a rule like that would only add to the already difficult task. As for the 2 new balls debate, im undecided. I think that maybe in div1 it should be introduced just because of the trend in results, but in the lower divisons, batting first against the new ball can be a help due to it being harder and playing truer on the wickets therefore allowing batsmen to play more attacking shots. The new spec ball has played better this year i feel, with games being won in either innings not just in the 2nd against the older ball.

[djbbb]

I'm with everyone on the 2 ball issue, having the new ball usually makes a big difference to the bearing of the game. Very few sides have batted first when they have won the toss in div1 and having 2 new balls should in theory mean the stronger side winning more often.

Although the idea of the 30m circle is a good one it could only work with independant umpires which we dont have (yet!!) :-(

I would like to see a change to the scoring system though, i wold like to see 20pts for a win, 10 + bonus for abandoned, 8 pts for cancelled. Bonus pts as follows
Batting
1=150, 2=175, 3=200, 4=225, 5=250.
bowling to stay as they are.

I would also like to see wide ball marks marked on the wicket, This would therefore end the interpretation of what is wide and what isn't.