What did you think of the rules and regulations for the World Cup?

As per usual, my main gripe with the rules of the game is the "Umpire's Call" ruling. It shouldn't do my head, but it really does. If an umpire gives a batter not out, on account of him thinking there was an inside edge. There is absolutely no reason for the batsman to get a reprieve on account of the ball only just clipping the stumps. By the same token, if an umpire gives a batsman not out because he thinks it was missing the stumps, there is no reason for the batsman to remain not out just because less than 50% of the ball impacted in line. My solution is simple, I don't propose we do away with Umpire's Call, but rather make it mean Umpire's call. Basically the rule stays the same, but when an umpire gives not out and it is reviewed, have him explain to the 3rd umpire why be gave it not out - "Pitching in line, impact in line, but I thought it was a little high". Under the current rule, if impact wasn't >50%, the decision would remain not out, despite that not being the reason the umpire called not out. Under my tweak, if impact wasn't >50%, but it hit the stumps enough, the batsman has to get on his bike. Umpires could obviously "game" the tweak, by telling the 3rd Ump "Pitching outside leg, impact not in line, missing leg", thereby covering themselves, but I am working on the assumption that umpires aren't vindictive.

My next gripe has been the boundary rider limitation. I didn't like them at the time, and I abhor them now. They haven't been all bad, of course. For one they've rewarded attacking captaincy in the middle overs, and made it difficult for struggling teams to get going, if they get in a rut. On the other hand, it's basically turned the last ten overs into a procession if the batting team has wickets in hand. Just an extended cake walk filled with open spaces where a boundary rider used to be. Funny enough, I don't think you can actually change it by reverting to the old rule (although it would be preferable), think that Pandora's box has been opened and we can't put anything back now. The game has skipped a thousand paces for batsmen, and reversed a couple hundred for bowlers.

Dinner - Oh my gosh. If a team is bowled out after 43 overs, or 40 overs, is it really mandatory to have the chasing side come in for five overs and then go back? Can't you just take the dinner during the change of innings? I'm sure no one would be confused or such.

Finally - Duckworth/Lewis, or Duckworth/Lewis Stern. Yes, no system is perfect, and yes, I probably wouldn't show any annoyance had we been on the right side of it, but I cannot believe that this is the best way forward in deciding rain affected matches. Was never too enamoured with DL, but I thought it was alright, but the new adaptation seems a little opaque.

Anyway, what Rules and regulations did you like/ not like this world cup?

Hi Raf,

Interesting thread.

I agree 100% on umpire's call. In fact I made this point a fair while back. It makes no sense to me that if the umpire gives a batsman not out because he thinks there's been an inside edge (and says as much to the fielding side, who then review) then the batsman survives just because slightly less than half the ball is hitting leg-stump. It makes even less sense that the fielding side then lose their review. The umpire should say why it's been given not out. Nothing wrong with saying "a bit high and a bit leg-side" if that's what he genuinely thinks.

There was a prime example in the Ireland-UAE game where I think Wilson went for a lap sweep, missed and UAE reviewed. I'm sure the umpire had given it not out based on impact being outside off (Wilson moved a long way across after the impact) but Wilson was saved based on the fact it may have been too high.

I know a few people don't like umpire's call at all. I'm fairly ambivalent about it. I think sometimes it goes too easy on the batsman, there are several times where the ball seems to be crashing into leg-stump and it's given as umpire's call. I would like to see it tweaked depending on how far the ball has to travel, and sometimes I think a ball which is just missing maybe should be umpire's call as well (if the goal is to back up the umpire's decision, then if hawk-eye showing a ball just hitting isn't considered conclusive proof the ball would have hit the stumps then a ball just missing can't be conclusive proof the ball would have missed surely?). But as regards the latter I think this would be too confusing for the public/TV audience, so needs must.

Dinner/Lunch break: absolutely agree. I would add that from a coaching point of view you are currently penalising the side who has done well (in bowling out the opposition early, or at the lower levels if you get through your overs quickly enough) which is just daft. As a coach I have at times had to instruct our players to go slow or to deliberately not get the last wicket for another 5 minutes or so - the 4 or 5 extra runs this might cost is easily worth it if you don't have to go in and bat for a tricky 10-15 minute period before the break. I would guess that the current situation is to do with TV companies and advertising revenue: there are no doubt more advertising slots sold during the mid-innings break and these are probably contracted to be at a given time.

Boundary riders: I have actually come to like the situation for the middle-overs. I think it makes for more interesting cricket with the top sides now being more aggressive with both bat and ball in the middle-overs. I agree that it has made the last 10 overs a bit silly. I don't really know what the solution is. I would certainly get rid of the batting powerplay, and maybe introduce a bowling powerplay of 5 or more overs where the fielding side can have 6 (or unlimited? But then I feel you would just see 9 boundary riders; 6 I think makes the batsman's job harder, but the most creative will still succeed) fielders outside the circle.

I quite like the 2 new balls as well now. More swing early on, but the good sides still get reverse later on in the innings. Means you don't have to change the ball after 35 odd overs because it's gotten mucky.

DLS: possibly not ideal (I do think it favours the side chasing, but that IMO is more a reflection on the game currently than the system) but until someone comes up with a better system... I still think it's OK. It gives a reasonably fair reflection. I don't want to go into the details of the SA-NZ situation really, but I think it wasn't helped by an unfortunate set of circumstances namely that SA went beserk after the 1st rain interruption. So the original recalculation (based on the 1st interruption) didn't (rightly) take into account that 65 off 5 overs or whatever it was. So the final recalculation looked on the low side.

Overall I quite enjoyed the cricket at the WC. The strong bowling sides (including the Indian seamers to everyone's surprise) did show that it wasn't always all about the batting side, and claims of 400+/200+ being easily achieved I think are slightly off the mark. Spinners like Ashwin and Vettori also still showed they have a role to play. My main gripe with this WC was the overlong and drawn-out format which made me lose interest halfway through the group stages. That is unlikely to change because the primary interest of the ICC isn't the sporting content of the tournament.

On Umpire's call, isn't the half a ball thing because of the margin of error in Hawkeye? So the pictures are only an illustration, and you are into the realms of probabilities and confidence intervals when half the ball is hitting the stumps.

I might be wrong, but you also can't get away from the fact that the public see the pictures. And you can't reverse that now, to have a system for example that didn't have the pictures but might just saying "Missing Stumps" or "Hitting Stumps".

I like the idea of umpires explaining why is was not out, then look at that. Also losing reviews to a marginal decision is really unfair, so any umpire's call review that fails, I don't think a team should lose a review for that. I thought the idea of taking a review off a team was to make sure they only reviewed reasonable shouts, you can't really say something that is overturned based on mm's difference/probabilitiy spread is not a reasonable shout!

I don't really care how, but as long as the right decision is made.

It really should come down to whether a batsman is in or out.

We want a fair contest.

My biggest gripe is the D/L, some may say I am a sore loser. But really I don't care, it needs fixing.

My first gripe is a team batting first sets up their innings to bat 50 overs as those are the conditions of play when their innings start.

Any rain interruption should not influence how many overs the team batting first bats.

The initial conditions of the innings must be adhered to.

Once the first innings is complete, only then must the time lost due to rain influence the match, and only prior to the start of thr second innings. At that point the team batting second will know what the conditions are to their innings.

If their innings is interrupted and not completed the match should be a no result.

If in the case of a knock out match, there should be a reserve day for the match to be played.

This nonsense of trying to complete a match in any other format should be scrapped, because the fairness of the competition is being disregarded in favour of any result, be it fair or not.

VTR wrote:

... I like the idea of umpires explaining why is was not out, then look at that. Also losing reviews to a marginal decision is really unfair, so any umpire's call review that fails, I don't think a team should lose a review for that. I thought the idea of taking a review off a team was to make sure they only reviewed reasonable shouts, you can't really say something that is overturned based on mm's difference/probabilitiy spread is not a reasonable shout!

Interesting debate. I liked Raf's opening question and even more that he made an excellent attempt to answer it himself (I hope my Norwich and Surrey supporting cyber friend picks up on that sledgehammer hint ).

As for VTR's comments above and other similar ones, I'm not so sure. I think the umpire having to explain a not out decision is quite a landmark change and I would be reluctant to go there in any rush (if at all). The onus seems to be too markedly shifting from the traditional view (I don't believe it was ever written in the rules but it was regarded as an inherent principle and imo worked well) of ''if in doubt, not out'' to a situation where the umpire has to expressly justify turning down an appeal.

I've heard David Lloyd, a former first class umpire and a very decent analyst when he can resist the urge to clown around, say on live commentary, ''It just didn't look right''. Whilst an ever demanding sporting public wants something more specific, I can understand and appreciate Lloyd's comment. I'm not convinced we should be looking to the actual umpire who saw it just the once in real time to say any more.

Now, is it actually unfair to lose a review on a marginal decision? I'll start off any answer to that with another question - what is the underlying purpose of a review? I'll be honest and say I'm not completely sure but I thought that first and foremost it was to prevent umpiring howlers. If that is the sole purpose, then it probably is fair to lose a review when it comes down to umpire's call. If the decision rests on umpire's call, then it's clearly not a howler and you were wrong to question it in the first place. [Happy to be corrected here as to the underlying purpose of a review although I believe my final point below would still apply.]

Also, the sympathies on losing a review to a marginal decision seem to only be extended to the bowling side. If this concept of not losing a review for a marginal decision was introduced, then surely it should also be applied to the batting side. I'm thinking of the situation where a batsman is given out lbw and reviews the decision; the review shows the ball just clipping the outside of leg stump and so the original ''out'' decision is upheld. You couldn't get much more marginal than this for the batsman - therefore, logically the batting side should keep their review although that would seem odd to many eyes as their man still trudges off!

Hi Guildford

I actually understand the "It just doesn't look right" argument. Funny how that can happen. But HawkEye, if nothing else has shown that just because it doesn't look right, doesn't mean that it isn't right. With all due respect, that is a throwback to an era (error?) a little less tech savvy, and with beyond reproach umpires.

Also, remember that umpires, to Ump on the elite panel, need to get 95% of decisions right. I'm fairly confident that they know why it doesn't look right.

Having umpires explain their calls may be a paradigm shift (hadn't thought of it, honestly, but once you mentioned it I completely see why), but I honestly believe it would be a move in the right direction.

Hi Raf,

Thanks for your considered - and polite! - response. I was anticipating a rougher ride.

I accept there's (my words, not your's) something of the dinosaur in me and, in particular, my comments above. Mind you, I do feel the poor dinosaur gets a harsh press. Man might be advised to hold back on his comments until he has ruled the earth for 160 million years.

As regards some of the other points discussed earlier -

* Lunch / dinner breaks: totally agree. Not having them between innings just breaks things up too much and, as Mike suggests, can end up unfairly penalising the team who bowled well in the first innings.

* Umpire's call: also completely agree with Mike's point about tweaking this depending on how far the ball has to travel (sure he and I discussed this previously).

* Last 10 overs: don't claim to know the exact answer but there would appear to be a need for some lessening of the field restrictions to cut down on the boundary fest we're now too often experiencing.

* DL / DLS: yes, South Africa got a raw deal in this World Cup from it. However, it has to be accepted that the the DL system will nearly always be having to catch up with advancements in how the game is played. I think that's recognised and, indeed, is shown by DLS coming into being. It's still not completely right and, in truth, probably never will or can be. It is though enormously better than some of the methods that were used in the past (hey, perhaps I'm not such a dinosaur! ).

I remember English county one day games being stopped due to bad weather and the result being determined purely on an average runs per over basis. That really could and did result in injustice. These examples are mine but they're not too far off what sometimes happened. The side batting first makes 160 off their allotted 40 overs. In example A, the chasing side are 79/0 off 20 when rain stops any further play and are adjudged to have lost. In Example B, the chasing side are 81/9 off 20 when the heavens open and are adjudged to have won. Utterly ridiculous in both Examples but that's the way it was!

I don't expect those tales of yesteryear to make you and the rest of South Africa feel any better but it does show how far systems have come and improved. As long as the need to keep looking at and refining any type of DL system is recognised, I feel we just have to accept the odd arbitrary bit of apparent unfairness that it may deliver from time to time. After all, cricket has always leant itself to element of unfairness; particularly, thinking of how winning a toss or a change of weather can at times overly influence a game.

Re DLS

If I'm honest, I wouldn't have had a problem with the revised score, had the Pakistani score in an earlier match not been adjusted to such similar levels.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with saying that good as the current system is - debatable - its not perfect.

kingraf wrote:Hi Guildford

I actually understand the "It just doesn't look right" argument. Funny how that can happen. But HawkEye, if nothing else has shown that just because it doesn't look right, doesn't mean that it isn't right. With all due respect, that is a throwback to an era (error?) a little less tech savvy, and with beyond reproach umpires.

Also, remember that umpires, to Ump on the elite panel, need to get 95% of decisions right. I'm fairly confident that they know why it doesn't look right.

Having umpires explain their calls may be a paradigm shift (hadn't thought of it, honestly, but once you mentioned it I completely see why), but I honestly believe it would be a move in the right direction.

Hi Raf - whilst away on holiday, I read a delightful book by Harry Pearson called Slipless in Settle, a sentimental and amusing journey around club cricket in the north of England. Anyway, the following extract made me recall this thread which I've just tracked down:

'' Many years ago I was forced into the invidious position of having to umpire a cricket match when my own team were batting because one of the proper umpires had failed to arrive. At one point I turned down an LBW appeal, and mindful of the fact that I had just given The Wangler [the skipper], who picked the side, gave me a lift and whose wife made the teas, not out, ventured to suggest by way of mitigation that the ball had pitched outside leg stump. At the end of the over the other umpire, a wily old fellow tanned the colour of a tinker's nut-bag and stooped by years of having dozens of jumpers piled on his shoulders, took me to one side. 'Never give your reasoning,' he said sagely. 'There's many a good decision been spoilt by a bad explanation.' ''

As already documented on these forums, I am not one bit a fan of giving the benefit of doubt to the umpire component of DRS. In fact it is this, more than any other reason that changed me from being a complete supporter of DRS into someone who is far more skeptical about it in the present form. I find 'umpire's call system quite nonsensical. I believe the DRS has to be there to make as much correct decision as possible, not bring in an additional bit of unwanted inconsistency in the name of benefit of doubt to the umpire that is perpetuated in the name of umpire's call.

There should still be a workable way in which the DRS can be brought in. Even in the ongoing India-Lanka test, there have been at least 5 suspect calls....... Silva the Lankan opener was wrongly given out, Shikhar Dhawan not given out and Kohli and Rahane given out on questionable LBW calls. Saha wrongly given out....... And the game has just completed 2 days!!

We seem to go over the drs argument every other week...

I know a lot of people don't like "umpire's call". But it is probably necessary ; as the alternatives aren't all that attractive.

Firstly , Hawkeye isn't 100% accurate. This is known. And is the reason why a margin for error is built into the ball tracking system. You can argue about the degree of tolerance , I suppose ; but you'd those who designed it and run it probably have more facts at their fingertips than the general public ?

Now you could take away the difference between "on field out " and "not out " ... So that whoever referred the decision , the verdict would be the same : ie , either no marginals ever given out or sudden death for any ball apparently just grazing the stumps.

The first case would invite ridicule from the crowd : they've seen the umpire give it out ; they see a TV representation showing the ball hitting the stumps ; but the batsman stays in .
The other alternative would invite ever more speculative appeals - and lead to batsmen being sent on their way even more often in cases where significant doubt may well exist.

These changes also don't deal with the case where a real howler is made on field. - and the aggrieved party has no referrals left.

Of course you could allow more referrals ...but I reckon we waste more time than we ought already. And depend upon it ; if you allow more referalls the number of "punts" will rise automatically...

Some reasonable ideas earlier in the thread about umpires defining
their reasons ; but to be honest I'm not convinced there is a great deal to be gained in that area either. Again the issue of time - and indeed the marginalization of the standing umpires - bothers me. Others obviously will disagree.

Anyway that's my take ; drs (which I could have done without ; but is her to stay) isn't perfect. But it doesn't do a bad job ; and I'd prefer to see it left alone rather than tinkering at it all the time in a vain attempt to achieve perfection - or the even less likely target of universal approval

I maintain my original stance. The DRS takes an eternity anyway. It isn't that big a leap for an umpire to justify his not out. I mean, these guys are elite.

Not sure about the crowd reaction argument alfie. Now also, there is a chance that almost half the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps yet the batsman stays in because the umpire gave him not out. And next ball, the batsman could be going back even if the ball is just shaving the stumps. It could be the original bowler who was denied who would be walking the 2nd time....... The scenario you painted cannot be far more ridiculous than this one.