4 rules in cricket that need modification

Cricket is perhaps the most unique game in the world with many peculiar rules that leave a spectator scratching his head many a times. Sometimes during a match when a batsman gets out by ‘Mankading’ or ‘Obstructing the field’, one suddenly is reminded that “Oh! Is that legal?”. Many rules are such that they question the spirit of the game and yet are there. So, when a side tries to benefit from them, they are hooted out of the stadium. If they are against the spirit, they shouldn’t exist, right? Here are 4 rules which should be either modified or removed for betterment of the game:

#4 Modify: Handling the ball dismissal

Law 33 cricket states that,

“A batsman can be given out for handling the ball under two circumstances. If the batsman intentionally touches the ball with one or both of their hands not holding the bat without the permission of the fielding side, they can be dismissed. The batsman will also be given out if, without the permission of a fielder, they return the ball to a fielder with their hands.”

First part of the law seems fine, which is similar to “hit the ball twice”, as the batsman obstructs the ball from going on to the stumps. Problem lies with the second part.

Why should a batsman be given out if he was trying to be helpful to the fielders by returning the ball? As per the spirit of the game is concerned, this is a big NO NO! This clause should be removed with immediate effect.

#3 Remove: Duckworth Lewis Method

It was after the controversial, heartbreaking end to South Africa vs England at the 1992 World Cup that two British statisticians came with this rule which was a little better than its predecessors. It has not been free from criticism and people often question its integrity.

Let’s look at the records for instance.

Since 1994, when D/L method was introduced, 2617 ODIs have been played (until March2014). Taking all the matches into account, the chasing team has a winning percent of 50.9.

This excludes the ties and ‘no results’. It shows that order of play isn’t significant enough in deciding the outcome of a match.

Now, around 280 matches out of all the games played are affected by D/L method. Out of these matches, team batting second has a winning percentage of 60.7.

This much difference in results does raise brows about the authenticity of the method. Besides, it is just too complicated to understand for common folks like me. There should be a hunt for better methods.

#2 Modify: allowing substitutes for injured players

Law 2 of cricket stated by MCC says,

“If the umpires are satisfied that a nominated player has been injured or become ill since the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have,

(i) a substitute acting for him in the field.

(ii) a runner when batting.”

This rule, which has many clauses, doesn’t allow a player who is not in the playing XI to bowl in place of an injured bowler or to bat in place of a batsman if he gets retired hurt.

This should be changed and much like the tactical substitution in a soccer game, a team should be allowed to play with 14-15 players and should be allowed to make 2-3 substitutions in case of injury.

#1 Eliminate: Fair and unfair play (spirit of the game)

Law 42 of cricket as prescribed by MCC says:

“The responsibility lies with the captains for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game, as described in The Preamble – The Spirit of Cricket, as well as within the Laws.”

With all due respect, I want to suggest to the ICC that they should consider removing this clause from the “Laws of cricket” manual.

A batsman is expected to walk if he feels he was out and got lucky, just for the sake of this spirit.

In the Ashes Test series of 2005, Ricky Ponting complained about what he regarded as the tactical substitution of specialist fielders for weaker bowlers in the English team, which he argued was against the “spirit of cricket”.

Why let the spirit interrupt the laws of cricket? Why keep so much confusion? Simply do away with the dreaded “spirit” itself