New law for incoming batsmen.

[Gough]

Curious as to people's thoughts here. To me it seems like a solution to a question that nobody in one hundred and thirty odd years of Test cricket has ever asked.

 

[big_e]

Makes sense to me. Was always an odd rule, imo.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Pointless change

One of the game awareness quirks of cricket

Are the AFL Rules Committee branching out?

 

[cats_09]

Is this just in test cricket or across all formats?

I can this this having the biggest impact on the shorter formats, the especially T20 - how many times have we heard a commentator say "This is a free hit for Player X as they need to get the set batter back on strike"... Suddenly that idea changes

 

[Gough]

Pointless change

One of the game awareness quirks of cricket

Are the AFL Rules Committee branching out?

As I side issue I do love that cricket has laws, not rules.

 

[PhatBoy]

Like the OP I have no idea what this change is in response to

Good to see the icc addressing this pressing issue and not, say, the issue of sitting around for 90 minutes waiting for play to start then having a lunch break within half an hour when there’s rain about

 

[aussiefooty]

As I side issue I do love that cricket has laws, not rules.

All sports have laws. It's just that they are changed all the time.

 

[aussiefooty]

Geez i wish Warnie was alive to be able to tell us what this is about and why the change has happened.

 

[akkaps]

MCC's new code of Laws for 2022 come into force | Lord's

MCC has today announced its new code of Laws for 2022, which will come into force from 1 October.

www.lords.org

Here's a list of other changes

 

[corbies]

Like the OP I have no idea what this change is in response to

Good to see the icc addressing this pressing issue and not, say, the issue of sitting around for 90 minutes waiting for play to start then having a lunch break within half an hour when there’s rain about

This is the MCC making these changes not the ICC.

 

[PhatBoy]

This is the MCC making these changes not the ICC.

True. They’ve also banned saliva on the ball for good

 

[corbies]

True. They’ve also banned saliva on the ball for good

The other significant one - moreso for the poor standard of cricket I play - is you now have to have some part of your body or bat - either grounded or raised - within the confines of the pitch to hit the ball. i.e. you can't go whack balls that come out wrong and go way off the pitch anymore.

Also the change to the wide rule is interesting "Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began his/her run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position. This provides more leeway for bowlers when a batter is moving laterally at the crease."

 

[freemo]

MCC moves to de-stigmatise non-striker run-outs in latest Law updates

Use of saliva for ball-shining, and batters changing ends during dismissals also amended

www.espncricinfo.com

One's first impression is that these changes - new batsman facing even the two batsmen crossed, destigmatising of "Mankading", etc - are amending things that a neophyte to the game would need to have explained to them into things that are perhaps more intuitive.

"Shouldn't the new batsman be facing?", "What's wrong with running out the non-striker if he was out of his crease (and trying to gain ground)?" are questions that, say, a baseball fan watching cricket for the first time, would likely wonder.

 

[Hamingja]

Law 1 – Replacement players


The introduction of a new clause, Law 1.3, explains that replacements are to be treated as if they were the player they replaced, inheriting any sanctions or dismissals that player has done in that match.

----------

I take it this isn't statistics based and just means if the person who you are replacing was already out, you can't bat again or if you are replacing a bowler who has been pulled out of the attack for beamers for example, the replacement won't be able to bowl etc.

Would be handy if Cummins faces a suspension for slow over rates, sub him out for Boland, and Boland gets the suspension if it worked that way though

 

[Hamingja]

Curious as to people's thoughts here. To me it seems like a solution to a question that nobody in one hundred and thirty odd years of Test cricket has ever asked.

The only real purpose here would be to speed up T20 I think. It's one of the things they spend 5 minutes looking at in the BBL but they don't want reviews for LBWs because, partly, it will slow the game down.

 

[akkaps]

Law 22.1 – Judging a Wide

In the modern game, batters are, more than ever, moving laterally around the crease before the ball is bowled.

It was felt unfair that a delivery might be called ‘Wide’ if it passes where the batter had stood as the bowler entered his/her delivery stride. Therefore, Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position.

Found this interesting, batsmen aren't able to moving inside the ball to create the wide, which I think is fair. But it's gonna be hard for the umpires to judge

 

[Gethelred]

Unnecessary. But then, so are the majority of rule changes.

 

[Gethelred]

Law 22.1 – Judging a Wide

In the modern game, batters are, more than ever, moving laterally around the crease before the ball is bowled.

It was felt unfair that a delivery might be called ‘Wide’ if it passes where the batter had stood as the bowler entered his/her delivery stride. Therefore, Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position.

Found this interesting, batsmen aren't able to moving inside the ball to create the wide, which I think is fair. But it's gonna be hard for the umpires to judge

Makes wide lines dead in the water, which I absolutely ****ing approve of.

 

[Toe Poke]

Curious as to people's thoughts here. To me it seems like a solution to a question that nobody in one hundred and thirty odd years of Test cricket has ever asked.

For those like me who don't run all scripts on this page, the law to which this thread refers is listed here:

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-announces-new-code-of-laws-from-1-october-2022

Law 18 – Batters returning when Caught

First trialled by the ECB in The Hundred at the suggestion of MCC, Law 18.11 has now been changed so that, when a batter is out Caught, the new batter shall come in at the end the striker was at, i.e. to face the next ball (unless it is the end of an over).

 

[GROTTO]

Curious as to people's thoughts here. To me it seems like a solution to a question that nobody in one hundred and thirty odd years of Test cricket has ever asked.

Sorry is this for just Tests or ODI and T20 as well?

If its Tests, its no big deal. For white ball cricket its a potential game changer.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Sounds like total bullshit. Part of the enjoyment being a bowler is snaring a wicket and then bowling to a fresh batsman first ball. Who's the idiot who came up with this one?

 

[Taylor]

Sounds like total bullshit. Part of the enjoyment being a bowler is snaring a wicket and then bowling to a fresh batsman first ball. Who's the idiot who came up with this one?

Isn't that exactly what this ensures? Instead of the players crossing while the ball was in the air before a catch?

It means my favorite moment of my own cricket career where I filled in for a bit of fun and the two set batsmen weren't looking shakey so the captain said have a bowl Tay, no expectations on you, so I took both their wickets in two balls after the first crossed after he miss hit a full toss on leg stump and then the second LBW with a toe bruiser yorker won't happen.

I've seen a game paused multiple times while the third umpire checks whether the batsmen has crossed before the catch was taken. No more issue.

 

[corbies]

Sounds like total bullshit. Part of the enjoyment being a bowler is snaring a wicket and then bowling to a fresh batsman first ball. Who's the idiot who came up with this one?

You might want to re-read the law change.

 

[Crashy]

This is terrible, how am I meant to be an annoying arseh*le if I don't question whether the batters crossed or not.

 

[Father Jack]

It never made any sense the old way, what difference does it make where the batsmen were if the run doesn't count? Long overdue and I wonder why it was ever any other way to begin with.