5 rules that need to be changed in cricket

With the new set-up coming into place in the International CricketCouncil (ICC)where the administration will be handled mostly by the Big Three India, England and Australia, here are some of the rules and aspects of the game that they should look into,to improve the quality of play and maintain its relevance among the stakeholders of the game.These are some rules that should change to help cricket mainly Tests move forward:

#1 Define bat thickness

Cricket has, for a long time, lived in the undefined when it comes to certain playing conditions and laws, one of which is the thickness of a bat.

As per the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) guidelines, there is no clear definition regarding how thick a batsman’s bat has to be. There needs to be a change in this certain aspect immediately considering the way bat sizes have inflated from moderate slates of wood to almost tree-trunks. These humongous weapons make even ordinary shots look like masterstrokes.

When there are guidelines regarding the shape and size of the cricket balls, stumps and, thankfully, the width of the bats, there should certainly be a clear code defining the bat thickness. In every sport, there are clear laws pertaining to the objects that are involved in play such as racquets, balls, nets, etc., so why have the custodians of the game shied away from bringing a law regarding the thickness of bats?

In my opinion, the ideal thickness of a bat at its meatiest point should be around 1 inch, whereas, if you see modern bats, they are well over 2 inches. Someone like Chris Gayle might have a bat thickness of around 3 inches.

Also, it may save the environment in the process, as fewer trees would be felled for manufacturing these kinds of bats.

#2 Define boundary lengths

Again continuing with the point of cricket having undefined playing conditions, it would be imperative for the health of the game if boundary lengths from the batting end were fixed. I agree that the size and shape of a particular ground lends a certain dimension (pun intended) to the match being played, like the long straight boundaries of the Adelaide Oval or the slope of the ground at Lord’s, but there should at least be a law that specifies a minimum length that a boundary should be. There should not be a certain side or corner of the ground that measures 50 metres from the pitch, let alone the whole ground being around that sort of a radius.

The combination of thick bats and short boundaries are a death knell for the bowlers. I believe that 70 metres should be set as the minimum length of every international ground. A 70 metre aerial hit is good enough shot to warrant six runs, which ensures that top edges don’t go over the line. Also, this would give the batsmen an opportunity to run 3, which has not been the case recently with these ever shortening boundary lines.

#3 Test Championship

There is an immediate need for a Test Championship if the ICC and other boards want the format to stay relevant. A Test Championship would bring a lot of interest into the format from the players’ side and, more importantly, from the spectators’ side, as well.

A tournament to decide the best team would bring back a lot of excitement into the game. The ICC should not just look at the short-term financial benefits when envisaging a tournament like this; they should look at the long-term health of the game that would benefit immensely from a championship event.

For that to happen, though, they should not have a Test-playoff system that is being deliberated and most likely to happen in 2017. They must have a format similar to any world cup in which the top 4-6 teams would compete for the title.

#4 Decision Review System

The current Decision Review System (DRS), to be honest, is flawed, and you can understand why the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is against it. It is never 100% correct, and the way it is being implemented in the world game defies logic.

One of the main defects of the current form of DRS is that, for a particular ball, there can two different decisions. When there is review for an LBW appeal, we often see an orange graphic that says ‘umpire’s call’: now in this case when the ball is not hitting flush in the line of the stumps, the decision stays with the on-field call, which could be out or not out depending on the earlier decision

This ambiguity needs to be removed, and there should be a clear decision from the Hawk-Eye as to whether it is out or not out. There should be a clear answer from the review depending on how the ICC decides to interpret the decisions. In my opinion, if the ball is hitting more than 50% in line with the stumps, it should be out; if not, it should be not out.

#5 Mankading

The new debate that has been ignited due to the recent incident in the England v Sri Lanka series is the rule related to “Mankading”. ICC needs to take a clear a stance on this whether it is in favour of the non-striker or not. The ‘Spirit of Cricket’ should not be used to defend a batsman who gets mankaded. There should be a clear definition regarding whether it is a legitimate form of dismissal or not.

Things like ‘giving warnings’ and asking the captain to withdraw his appeal should not be involved in the process of deciding whether he is out or not. If the ICC, and MCC, decide that Mankading is a form of run-out. then the batsman should be given out whenever he is found out of his crease regardless of whether he was warned or not.