World Cup 2023: 3 major rules that need to be reviewed before the next edition

The final of the 2019 World Cup turned out to be one of the greatest ODI matches ever played, ending with immense elation for one team and disconsolate heartbreak for the other. The game was nothing short of a roller-coaster ride, with no team looking clear favourites at any stage of the game. However, the best of the spectacle was kept for the last couple of overs, where every ball seemed as if the cricketing gods were writing some suspenseful script.

If all those nail-biting moments were not enough, the game ended in a tie and went into the Super Over, the first ever in an ODI game. But wait, that did not end there. The Super Over also ended in a tie and the winners were declared on the basis of number of boundaries hit in the match, a rule which will forever baffle the cricketing fraternity.

This game will be remembered for ages, not just for the quality of cricket and the plethora of emotions on display, but also for some rules of the game which go beyond logic. While it was a game which could have made cricket reach a wider audience through the sheer excitement it produced, it will remain as a game which will only lessen cricket's appeal to the larger audience because of its flawed rules.

#3 Efficient use of technology for DRS

Rohit Sharma was given out despite inconclusive evidence from the snickometer

The DRS has been controversial ever since its inception. A few teams including India did not accept the implementation of DRS in bilateral series involving them for a very long time. Others like Australia and England have been on the wrong side of DRS at some point or other.

But the DRS has been an integral part of all major ICC events since the 2011 World Cup. However, the method is still not used upto its full potential. The availability of a single review per innings being the biggest loophole. More often than not, the openers end up using the review and we see batting sides left with no review during crunch situations.

Yes, the DRS has to be used judiciously, but why not make full use of technology when it is available. The better solution might be to have one review for every 25 overs, and if you have not used up your review till the 25th over, you will have two reviews from 26th over onwards.

The other issue is the involvement of the hotspot technology. The Rohit Sharma dismissal against West Indies was quite controversial, as the evidence from snickometer was inconclusive. Hotspot can be used to find better solutions in such cases.

#2 Boundaries cannot decide the result of an ODI

Buttler crashing the stumps to run Guptill out, ending the super-over in a tie

New Zealand lost despite not actually losing the game. A tied ODI followed by a tied super-over resulted in the team with more boundaries winning the game. This is a common practice in T20 tournaments, but the question is, should an ODI be decided on the basis of boundaries only?

Both teams reached 241, one team with more boundaries, the other with more singles and doubles. They reached the same destination via different paths. This rule makes sense to some extent in T20s, a format which is all about hitting the ball out of the park. But an ODI game is a different ball game altogether. There are certain phases in an ODI game where running between the wickets is more important than hitting boundaries, and you just cannot ignore that.

There might not be a perfect solution to a tied super-over in an ODI yet, but declaring winners on the basis of boundaries should not be the way to go.

#1 Playoffs, not semi finals are the way to go in a round-robin format

India were knocked out with one bad day, despite being the nest side in the league stage

Irrespective of how the exciting the final turned out to be, it was a shame that the two best teams in the league stage, India and Australia, crashed out before the finals. After being so consistent in the league stage, crashing out because of just one bad day on the field was simply not fair on both teams.

There have been knockouts in the previous editions as well, but in those tournaments, not every team faced every other team in the league stage. In the current edition, with the round robin format in place, there was a level playing ground to judge which teams were better in the league stage.

Imagine a team beating all other sides and finishing on top, losing in the semifinals against a team they had convincingly beaten in the group stage and crashing out. One bad day and all your wins go in vain.

The better idea is to have playoffs as practised in the Indian Premier League. That would give at least some advantage to teams finishing at the top. Even this is not a perfect solution, but it is certainly a better alternative to the knockouts.

Apart from these, some other issues ICC should focus on including the improved use if technology, the standard of umpiring, the number of reviews per innings and some rules involving overthrows like the one involving Stokes in the last over.