HOW TO MAKE CRICKET BETTER

Here a five ways we should change the rules of cricket. I would argue that these are changes that no reasonable person can oppose. Arguing against them is logically equivalent to arguing that batsmen should never be given out if they have red hair, middle name Jim and it is a Tuesday afternoon. You could put this in the rules but no reasonable person could support it.

The fundamental principle of cricket regulation (FPCR) on which these changes are based is that rules of cricket should be framed so as to test the skill of the players with bat and ball. An uncontroversial proposition I would have thought.

Problem 1: The coin toss. Currently there is a coin toss each game, which determines which team has the choice of first use of the pitch. At some venues, and under some weather conditions, this choice can be quite important. What is wrong with a coin toss? In a five test series it is possible for a team to win all five tosses and gain an unfair advantage over the series. This adds further explicit randomness to the result. It is logically equivalent to adding a randomly generated number to each team’s score at the end of each innings. It tests the team captain’s ability to predict the toss of a coin (c.f. FPCR). You could put it in the rules but why would you? The solution: There are five test where the choice of batting or bowling needs to be allocated. There is a single coin toss. The winner of the toss will have the choice of batting/bowling at 3 of the 5 tests. So you don’t get the crazy situation of one team getting 5/5 choices. There is some further thought required about which 3 tests the winner gets to choose. At some test venues it may be more important to have the batting/bowling choice than others. Certainly then it would give a larger advantage if the winner gets to choose which three tests. I would suggest that the winner gets first bid on which of the five test they want to have the choice of batting or bowling for. The loser gets the next two bids and the winner the last two bids.

Problem 2: No balls. Currently, if some part of the bowler’s front foot is not behind the line then the ball is illegal. If the batsman is bowled by such a ball then they are not out. This can, and does, have a huge impact on the result of a game. The no ball rule tests a bowlers ability to run say 27 meters at full pace and place his foot behind a line, while not looking (c.f. FPCR). Such a skill may be relevant to long-jump but it is certainly nothing to do with cricket. It is about as sensible as requiring batsmen to carry the bat with two hands while they run. You could put it in the rules but why would you? The solution: Have two no-ball lines, the current one and another say 20 centimeters further on. If the bowler steps over the first line it is an “over-step ball”. There is a 1 run penalty announced after the completion of the play but the ball is still legal. If the bowler steps over the second line then it is a “no ball” and illegal. The logic is that the area between the two lines is an area where the bowler can make an honest and accidental misjudgment while gaining little advantage. Such a misdemeanor should attract only a minor penalty. There would seem to be no incentive for the bowler to deliberately over-step as a 20 centimeter advantage would not be worth a one run penalty. Yet, we have to have some limit on over-stepping hence the second line.

Problem 3: Leg before wicket (of course!). Warney is bowling around the wicket to a right hander. It is the one that keeps straight. It pitches one inch outside leg stump, hits the pad in front of leg stump, going on to hit off. Decision? Not out. If the batman was a left hander, the same ball has pitched outside off stump. Decision? Out. See the difference? I don’t! But the rules specifically distinguish between off and leg stump in the lbw laws. Yet lbw is about the leg, the ball and the wicket. The only difference between a left and right hander is which side of the legs the useless bat (which missed the ball) happens to be dangling. This silly rule is really a corker. It is an affront to nature! Because it actually violates the laws of geometrical symmetry. It doesn’t just conflict with FPCR - it is a shameless assault on the laws of God. Mathematicians should picket the MCG and take out a court injunction on any further cricket being played until this insult to logic is resolved. The solution: Remove any reference to off or leg stump in the laws of cricket. And yes, this means the Poms can use leg-side theory. But Warney would get even more wickets.

Problem 4: Shining the ball. It is common practice for players to deliberately shine one side of the ball by rubbing against the ‘inside leg’ during the course of an innings. The express purpose of this practice is to make the ball behave in an erratic manner in the air i.e. to swing. The result of shining is that the ball is aero dynamically lop-sided. While a clever lawyer might argue that shining the ball actually reduces the damage inflicted on the ball in play, the cleverer lawyer would point out that the intention and effect is to gain unfair advantage. It is explicitly against the rules to “tamper with the ball”. Tendulkar was suspended a few years ago for fiddling with the seam, which makes it easier for the bowler to hold the seam and bowl certain balls. Yet the Poms have specifically delegated the shining job to Marcus Trescothick who is more skilled at shining the ball that others on his team! The solution. Enforce the existing rule. Ball shining is ball tampering.

Problem 5: Penalties for slow over rates. In limited over games, teams that fail to complete their 50 overs within the allotted time are severely penalized. If they finish say 48, then they still have to bowl the extra 2 (going over time) but only receive 48 overs when it is their turn to bat. The same penalty is not applied to the team that bowls second. The motivation for this rule is to allow TV programmers to better predict the end of the innings so that they can sell the very lucrative advertising time in the period between innings. The motivation then is 100% financial. And the ACB are prepared to vandalise the game by tampering with the result just to please their TV masters. If they really want to address this financial problem then the appropriate method is to use financial incentives. They should simply subtract the value of the lost advertising time from the player match payments.