FIVE LAWS THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED

As the controversy surrounding "A Six That Did Not Count" is slowly subsiding, I decided to look into a few cricket laws that I think should be changed. Here is my list:

1. The first one obviously relates to the Viru's 99* incident. As I have written in my last blog "A SIX THAT DID NOT COUNT", this law should be looked into by the MCC since the batsman is not at fault if the bowler bowls an illegal delivery. He has hit a legitimate cricket shot... and should be awarded its worth in runs. I have also analysed a hypothetical situation in that blog regarding how those six less runs might affect the Net Run Rate scenarios in multi-team tournaments.

2. Similar to the previous one, there is another law that says that when a team needs 1 to win and the batsman hits a 4 or a 6, only 1 run will be awarded if the batsmen cross before the ball reaches the boundary. Again, for the same reasons as stated above and in my previous blog, this rule needs to be changed by MCC.


3. Now the next law that I state was also seen in action during the India - Sri Lanka ODI and was mentioned by Achettup on his blog - "Short Of A Length". Sehwag was bowled on a Free Hit by Malinga. And what resulted eventually was a single that was classified as a 'bye'. Have you not favoured batsmen enough by allowing a 'Free Hit'? If the batsman cannot utilise it well, it is his fault. Why should the bowler be punished if he has uprooted the stumps? I can understand if the batsmen run for a single after being bowled off a no-ball, since a 'no-ball' is an illegal delivery. But as Achettup mentions, a Free Hit is a legal delivery and the ball should be dead once it hits the stumps and a dot ball should result in such a case.


4. The law of Free Hit was introduced to make the game more interesting. But what I don't understand is why is the fielding team not allowed to change the field on a Free Hit! The batsman is going to look for a slog irrespective of where the field is set... so why not allow for a change of field! Who knows, an astute captain (a rare thing, these days) might set a good field for a run out. And I can assure you that a run out on a Free Hit will make the game a lot more interesting than a Six or a Four. It will give us bloggers something more to blog on. Many batsmen hit boundaries on Free Hits, but how many get dismissed on one!?

5. This one is something that has been in my mind for a long time now. When a batsman dives in to make his ground, his bat sometimes pops up and as a result, he is declared 'Out'. That is a correct decision! But in all that, one thing is overlooked. More often than not, it so happens that the toe of the bat touches the ground inside the crease before the bat pops up. So when the bails are dislodged, the bat is in the air and the batsman is Out. But we tend to forget that when the bat was grounded inside the crease for that nanosecond, the run was complete. The run out was effected after the run was completed. But I have never seen the run credited to the team when such decisions are declared 'Out'. Who knows what difference that 1 run might make at the end of an important match!

Viewers are invited to post some of their insights on my observations in the form of comments. If there is another law that you feel is unfair, please let me know by your comments. I will compile another set of such laws and post another blog on this issue if need be.

A SIX THAT DID NOT COUNT

Now that is one rubbish rule! With India requiring 1 run to win the match, Sri Lankan off-spinner (the man with a delivery stride as large as my normal step) bowled a no-ball that was dispatched by Sehwag (99*) over the long off fence for a six. But as per the laws of our beloved game, the six runs did not count and the game was deemed finished as soon as the no-ball was bowled.

This is a stupid law for the following reasons:

1. If the runs are not going to be counted, then why count the ball in Sehwag's numbers? Before that ball, Sehwag was 99* of 99 balls... and after that ball, he finished with 99* of 100 balls.

2. Had the six off a no-ball been scored on any other occasion during the match, then the 6 would have been credited to the batsman. Why should it be any different for the winning runs?

I can understand a need for such a rule (for the winning runs) in this scenario: the chasing team needs 1 to win with 1 wicket in hand and the batsman is stumped of a wide / no-ball. Since one can't have a situation where a team wins by 0 wickets, we need to have a different rule for finishing the game. But that rule should be in respect of dismissals, not runs. Had Sehwag hit that six (off a no-ball) when 2 were needed to win, then the runs would have been counted in his tally. Then why should it be any different when its 1 to win?

3. India eventually finished with 171, and not 177. The 6 runs that have not been considered may well affect the Net Run Rate scenario. If not in this series, such a situation may occur in other multi-team tournaments.

Imagine a situation where AB De Villiers hits a 6 off a no-ball when 1 is needed to win in South Africa's first match of the World Cup 2011. But only the no-ball counts and the 6 runs are wasted. If South Africa were to bow out of the World Cup 2011 in the Group stage due to NRR and it is discovered that those 6 runs would have helped them qualify, then it would have created an uproar! The tag of 'chokers' would have stuck to them due to no apparent fault of theirs... just because of a stupid and illogical law!

4. Most importantly, when the umpire signals a no-ball, the ball is still in play. It does not become dead. Till the ball is dead, all the activities that occur within the field of play should be recorded... irrespective of whether it is the 1st ball of the match or it is 1 run needed to win.

I really do hope that MCC changes this law at the earliest. The fact that Sehwag missed out on a well-deserved 100 is not as important as the controversy that might happen due to this rule if that hypothetical-South-Africa-situation were to really occur!