Comments on Tidbits here and there: Cricket: A better way of penalizing slow over rate...

Making such rules for T20 games is probably a good...

2009-12-21T17:18:15.000+08:00

Making such rules for T20 games is probably a good idea since it is a 4 hour game... but it doesn't really matter if an 8 hour game extends by half an hour... if you decide to watch an ODI you will do it even if it exceeds by half an hour no matter whether you decide to watch it at home or at the stadium. T20 can still be called a viewer friendly format of cricket although as compared to the other games (like football/tennis) it is still longer and hence less viewer friendly. But ODIs, do you think making an ODI finish in 8 hours will make it any more viewer friendly than it already is.

For test matches, there shouldn't be any such rule... you should play until the light conditions allow you to... even if it goes beyond 90 overs... The real cricket was when they used to play time less matches... that was the real test of a cricketer. Anyway, who watches test matches these days? I only follow, not watch. Test matches are not for viewers, they are for players, cricketers.

s/news/new ways.

2009-12-21T13:50:49.318+08:00

s/news/new ways.

@Dipen Your last comment makes me think that you d...

2009-12-21T13:50:08.798+08:00

@Dipen
Your last comment makes me think that you don't consider the slow over rate as a problem, but in fact you consider it as a essence of the game, in which case, this doesn't matter.

Have you tried following cricket these days? Almost always the game is going well into over time and that doesn't augur well for the game. It just feels that we want to let it be a leisurely game with no time pressures. That was fine till kings were playing and the princes watching, not anymore.

My proposal is based on the fact that what is already a viewer unfriendly game should be made a little more friendly by having hard time limits. I am fine with injury delays, but delays just because the captains fancy it is unpardonable.

It would actually never kill excitement, but introduce more exciting games. The introduction of the penalty itself means that no captain will let the game go into overtime, but instead find news to optimize time usage and that can only make the game exciting.

BTW, what is wrong with the free hit?

@Shreeni Oh okay... Either it was not clear or I ...

2009-12-21T13:24:15.416+08:00

@Shreeni
Oh okay... Either it was not clear or I missed.

So on the proposal again, I still think it would be unfair because the batting team is earning some runs without having done anything. Although it could be a legitimate penalty, it kills the essence of the game - cricket.

Also, the scene would be dramatic when the batting-first-bowling-second team goes at a slower rate and batting second team earns penalty runs at the end e.g. if they need 25 runs in 18 balls and the allotted time is over, they will earn 18 runs for free, requiring just 7 runs in 18 balls... the excitement is suddenly over.

So considering such scenarios, I think the present system is fair enough... It considers overshooting 2 overs' time as a mild offense with proposed penalty as some percent of match fee and 3 or more overs' time as serious offense with proposed penalty of ban for some matches. Specially since it is working quite well, nobody is genuinely unhappy with it and it is widely accepted shows its fairness. Also, it doesn't kill the essence of cricket (like the previous rules of cutting overs and the one proposed here).

However, since we have rules like free hit and all, I won't be surprised if the ICC considers such or similar proposals for implementation.

@Dipen: Oh, I am sorry if I was not clear. These r...

2009-12-21T11:50:28.751+08:00

@Dipen: Oh, I am sorry if I was not clear. These runs are in addition to what the batting team scores in the entire 50 overs. So, if the batting team actually was going hammers and tongs at 12/over and the bowling team is late by 3 overs, the batting team gets 18 runs more. Not just 18 runs, but 18 + whatever they score in those 3 overs.

The proposed solution is a penalty, not a replacement. That would defeat the entire purpose.

I don't think this is a fair suggestion. Adding 6 ...

2009-12-21T11:45:38.539+08:00

I don't think this is a fair suggestion. Adding 6 (or whatever quantum) runs isn't really fair... The batting team might be going at a very slower (up to 3 runs per over) or at a very high (up to 12 runs per over) pace. So adding fix number of runs per over is really not a good idea or justified idea. If the batting team is going at a very fast rate, the bowling team might intentionally not finish their overs in time if such a rule was in place.