Penalty runs
I've long suspected that much we hear on the radio, in particular, and on television about overrunning because of slow over rates is mostly about commentators wanting to get away to the pub but I do agree that the speed with which Tweny20 matches are played is much better than the dawdle you often see elsewhere (even in club cricket). And this is much to do with the penalty runs system.
However I watched two games last week one at The Oval and once on TV where the sudden change in the target changed the whole match. At The Oval Surrey's target changed from 14 to 8 off the last over (big difference, although they still failed to get there). Fair enough to penalise the players but tough on the supporters - is there not a better way?
5 comments:
Completely agree - a game hotting up to an interesting finale can be totally ruined for the spectators with one over to go given the current regulations.
Having given it a moment's thought, I'd suggest any penalty is applied to their score when batting in their next game. I would simply not have the rule in a final match of any competition/series.
I'm sure cricket administrators who have more time to consider this could come up with something better....
By the way you have a lovely wife allowing you to watch so much cricket!!
And play too! Certainly no complaints from me!
I'm not sure how much of a problem this is - if it's light (and playable) till 9pm or the ground has lights, I don't see the harm in letting the game run its natural course.
If the game can't be finished because of bad light or rain which occurs after the scheduled finish, and a slow over rate by one team is the cause of the delay, award the match to the other team regardless of the match situation. The offending team forfeits their right to win the game by not completing the match in time.
The only way you'll really speed the players up more generally is to hit them (the whole team) in the pocket if they transgress, hit them harder if they do it again and so on. If a team transgresses more than X times in a season, the captain gets a 3 match ban. Do it again in the same season and 2 players get banned. And so on.
I really don't think it would ever get that far (certainly hope not!), but would provide a good incentive to speed up the game, without ruining it for the crowd.
Hasn't fining and banning been shown not to work? The only example I can think of (which is debatable) is when Ponting bowled part-timers in India. He claimed they were the best men for the job, if memory serves me correctly, but all observers reckoned he was simply bowling the part-timers to get through the overs.
Apart from that, captains just seem to accept fines as part of the job and they're sufficiently well off that the fines don't really hurt them.
Post a Comment