I think Bal's suggestion is neat, even if the language needs to consider one or two cases in order to become a concrete law. This article pokes holes in a one-liner from Bal, which does him a disservice since his intent was to propose an improvement as a journalist, not draft a clause for the rulebook as a lawmaker.
About the two objections you've raised - the dead ball law and the appeal law...
If the batsman is dismissed but the batters have already completed a run, the law can simply state that the run won't count as long as the appeal is withheld post review (if there is one). That the "ball would be considered dead on the moment of impact" if the impact eventually results in a dismissal.
The appeal point is an even bigger non-issue IMO.
"Should bowlers and fielders appeal? Or should they field the ball?" It is simply not that complicated. The person closest to the ball can field it while the others appeal. And the appeal doesn't have to last for 20 seconds. An audible howzzat can be uttered even while you're fielding the ball. Players would just have to be a little more aware. It's not a crazy difficult new skill to learn.
It has already happened on the cricket field that the keeper, *while appealing for LBW*, noticed that the batsman had ventured out of their crease, and effected a run out / stumping. It's pretty elementary mid-play awareness.
FWIW, the whole distinction between a "simple tweak" and a "fundamental change" doesn't mean much. A rule change is a rule change. The distinction you've made is personal to you - the MCC/ICC doesn't call any rules fundamental or minor. The book is written and amended all the time. And I hope this particular rule changes.
The problem is that people have issues with laws of cricket only after some incident occurs. For instance, people had problem with the boundary count rule in 2019 WC final, only after it occured. No one batted an eyelid on that rule, before the super over got tied
That's the natural lifecycle of all laws. Improvement is gradual and often triggered by singular events. But improvement is still necessary and the new super over law is a good example of it. I guess you mean that the "problem" is all the hue and cry. But there's a lot of signal mixed with the noise. Bal and Kimber, for example, raise very valid points that lawmakers ought to listen to.
I'm not sure how one decides whether an amendment to the laws is an improvement. The laws of cricket are arbitrary. They do not depend on any principles of justice. The only requirement is that they should be internally consistent (for eg. they should not create contradictions of the kind of a situation occurs in the game in which two laws point to two separate conclusions and it is not clear which of the two laws applies).
In sport, changing the law changes the sport. Its not clear that it improves it (or makes it worse).
Besides, it is surely not controversial to require that anyone who is advocating a change to the law should first describe the law they want changed accurately.
Agreed that rules shouldn't create contradictions and should be internally consistent. That's a necessary *but not a sufficient* condition for the rule to be "good".
Coming to which... the idea of "good" or "improved" is personal. For example, I think the new infinite-super-overs rule is a huge improvement over the old boundary-count rule. Not everyone has to agree, and I'm sure the boundary-count camp (if there is one) have their arguments too.
Does the boundary-count rule create any contradictions? No. Do I think it's the right way to decide a tied match? Certainly not.
The implication that the laws of cricket should be completely divorced from a sense of right and wrong is a strange and robotic way to look at the sport. There is value in the pursuit of "fairness" even if it seems arbitrary to someone else.
It is not controversial at all to ask someone to accurately describe the law they want. But I guess an intelligent lawmaker can turn a half-formed idea into a law, with the inclusion of certain boundary conditions.
Proposals to award runs when an Out dismissal is revised to a Not Out dismissal do not even attempt to show that there won't be contradictions. Further more, by describing what they propose as "minor tweaks" they're asserting that that there won't be contradictions.
The boundary count rule is not a Law of Cricket.
If you're point is, as you seem to suggest several times over, that its all just personal opinion, then there's really nothing more to be said here.
Its not true that it can be shown that a law improves a game because showing such a thing requires a system of axioms outside the game. Such a system of axioms does not exist for any game. There is no way to justify, for instance, that the pitch should be 22 yards long, or that the stumps should be 28 inches high. Or that a boundary should be worth 4 runs. These are arbitrary decisions.
Now, if one is to simply ignore the consequence which follow from this, then one is no longer discussing cricket.
"If you're point is that it's all just personal" - I don't understand what you mean by "all" here.
Here's one way to explain why seemingly arbitrary laws of any good game are all rooted in a sense of "fair" or "just" or axioms outside the game. Let's consider your examples:
1. There is no way to justify that a boundary should be worth 4 runs: Of course. But there is a way to justify that, *given that a boundary is worth 4 runs*, a six should be worth 5/6/7... but not 1/2/3. That would be absurd.
2. There is no way to justify, for instance, that the pitch should be 22 yards long: Of course. But *given that the pitch is 22 yards long*, it would be justifiable for the wide line to be 0.8 meters from the stumps instead of 0.9 meters, but certainly not 4 meters from the stumps. That would be absurd too.
These examples are to demonstrate that rules and laws are not completely arbitrary constructs of a sealed-shut system that has no interaction with the ways of the "real" world. You should reward higher risk with a bigger reward. That's why the 6 gets you 6 and not 3. That's a principle from economics. The wide line shouldn't be at 4 meters because there are constraints on what the human body can achieve.
If you're fielding and take a shy at the stumps and it's blocked by a batter who clearly and deliberately obstructed the throw, you think "that's not right" even if you've never read the laws of the game.
So to insist that rules are completely arbitrary is, to use a term I used before, a strange and robotic way to look at the game.
"Proposals... do not even attempt to show that there won't be contradictions"
This could just be a sampling issue in your worldview. You've referred to proposals from Kimber and Bal, who are journalists and not lawmakers. There are ways to turn their core ideas into laws that don't contradict other laws, with some extra verbiage.
"*given that a boundary is worth 4 runs*, a six should be worth 5/6/7... but not 1/2/3. That would be absurd."
It would only be absurd given the presumption that hitting the ball over the boundary on the full is more desirable than hitting it past the boundary on the bounce. There is no reason for thinking that it has to be more desirable. That is an entirely arbitrary, unreasoned choice.
The same goes for (2).
I don't insist that the rules are arbitrary, I merely observe that they are. That is what makes it a game.
I completely agree. Laws are laws, have to be followed. People have problems with the laws only when they don't get the results which favour their logic or stance.
"as Jarrod Kimber proposes. This would be as unfair to the bowling side as the apparent denial of four leg byes is considered to be for the batting side. There is no method of retrospective reinstatement which can prevent such unfairness to one side or the other in the event of a successful player review by a batter. For example, suppose the ball trickles for four leg byes. Under the normal circumstances, if the fielding side wasn’t appealing, but fielding, they would probably stop the ball before it crossed the boundary. But now, they concede four runs because they were doing something which the law requires them to do to get a dismissal - to ask for a dismissal."
The fielding side is aware of the possibility of an appeal not being given and consequently needing to field the ball because it stays in play. There might be slight change in the manner of appeal where some of the players field while others appeal. This already happens when fielding team is not entirely confident with their appeal.
I often think that cricket fans are hopelessly prejudiced against bowlers.
Here, you seem to think it is fair for the bowling side to be retrospectively penalized because "they're not entirely confident of their appeal". But you want the batting side to get 4 extra runs for missing the ball!
Had it not been for that particular incident, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Besides, all you seem to be doing is to say that its perfectly fine to be unfair to the bowling side by reinstating the runs, but its not fine to be unfair to the batter. This is not the pursuit of a fairer law. It's simply the pursuit of a law which favors the batter.
Firstly, why does the trigger matter? Better late than never, in my book. Kimber has a video where he's imagined the case where the batter hits the ball, is given out on field, the decision is reversed upon review, but no runs are awarded. Just that this happens on the last ball of a world cup final and the absence of those runs changes the result.
To say that that situation is fair to both the batsman and bowler would be a stretch.
Good to see you bat for laws that are fair to bowlers, though. Or disagree with a suggestion because you feel it's unfair to someone. It's almost as if internal consistency and lack of contradiction aren't the only criteria that should decide whether a law is good or not.
Using the words fair and unfair? I call that progress.
I think Bal's suggestion is neat, even if the language needs to consider one or two cases in order to become a concrete law. This article pokes holes in a one-liner from Bal, which does him a disservice since his intent was to propose an improvement as a journalist, not draft a clause for the rulebook as a lawmaker.
About the two objections you've raised - the dead ball law and the appeal law...
If the batsman is dismissed but the batters have already completed a run, the law can simply state that the run won't count as long as the appeal is withheld post review (if there is one). That the "ball would be considered dead on the moment of impact" if the impact eventually results in a dismissal.
The appeal point is an even bigger non-issue IMO.
"Should bowlers and fielders appeal? Or should they field the ball?" It is simply not that complicated. The person closest to the ball can field it while the others appeal. And the appeal doesn't have to last for 20 seconds. An audible howzzat can be uttered even while you're fielding the ball. Players would just have to be a little more aware. It's not a crazy difficult new skill to learn.
It has already happened on the cricket field that the keeper, *while appealing for LBW*, noticed that the batsman had ventured out of their crease, and effected a run out / stumping. It's pretty elementary mid-play awareness.
FWIW, the whole distinction between a "simple tweak" and a "fundamental change" doesn't mean much. A rule change is a rule change. The distinction you've made is personal to you - the MCC/ICC doesn't call any rules fundamental or minor. The book is written and amended all the time. And I hope this particular rule changes.
"the run won't count as long as the appeal is withheld post review (if there is one)"
I did not follow this point.
The problem is that people have issues with laws of cricket only after some incident occurs. For instance, people had problem with the boundary count rule in 2019 WC final, only after it occured. No one batted an eyelid on that rule, before the super over got tied
That's the natural lifecycle of all laws. Improvement is gradual and often triggered by singular events. But improvement is still necessary and the new super over law is a good example of it. I guess you mean that the "problem" is all the hue and cry. But there's a lot of signal mixed with the noise. Bal and Kimber, for example, raise very valid points that lawmakers ought to listen to.
Laws are laws and needs to be followed even if they seem to be stupid. It's another thing that they ought to be changed or not.
However, claiming that BAN lost because of that 1 decision doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure how one decides whether an amendment to the laws is an improvement. The laws of cricket are arbitrary. They do not depend on any principles of justice. The only requirement is that they should be internally consistent (for eg. they should not create contradictions of the kind of a situation occurs in the game in which two laws point to two separate conclusions and it is not clear which of the two laws applies).
In sport, changing the law changes the sport. Its not clear that it improves it (or makes it worse).
Besides, it is surely not controversial to require that anyone who is advocating a change to the law should first describe the law they want changed accurately.
Agreed that rules shouldn't create contradictions and should be internally consistent. That's a necessary *but not a sufficient* condition for the rule to be "good".
Coming to which... the idea of "good" or "improved" is personal. For example, I think the new infinite-super-overs rule is a huge improvement over the old boundary-count rule. Not everyone has to agree, and I'm sure the boundary-count camp (if there is one) have their arguments too.
Does the boundary-count rule create any contradictions? No. Do I think it's the right way to decide a tied match? Certainly not.
The implication that the laws of cricket should be completely divorced from a sense of right and wrong is a strange and robotic way to look at the sport. There is value in the pursuit of "fairness" even if it seems arbitrary to someone else.
It is not controversial at all to ask someone to accurately describe the law they want. But I guess an intelligent lawmaker can turn a half-formed idea into a law, with the inclusion of certain boundary conditions.
Proposals to award runs when an Out dismissal is revised to a Not Out dismissal do not even attempt to show that there won't be contradictions. Further more, by describing what they propose as "minor tweaks" they're asserting that that there won't be contradictions.
The boundary count rule is not a Law of Cricket.
If you're point is, as you seem to suggest several times over, that its all just personal opinion, then there's really nothing more to be said here.
Its not true that it can be shown that a law improves a game because showing such a thing requires a system of axioms outside the game. Such a system of axioms does not exist for any game. There is no way to justify, for instance, that the pitch should be 22 yards long, or that the stumps should be 28 inches high. Or that a boundary should be worth 4 runs. These are arbitrary decisions.
Now, if one is to simply ignore the consequence which follow from this, then one is no longer discussing cricket.
"If you're point is that it's all just personal" - I don't understand what you mean by "all" here.
Here's one way to explain why seemingly arbitrary laws of any good game are all rooted in a sense of "fair" or "just" or axioms outside the game. Let's consider your examples:
1. There is no way to justify that a boundary should be worth 4 runs: Of course. But there is a way to justify that, *given that a boundary is worth 4 runs*, a six should be worth 5/6/7... but not 1/2/3. That would be absurd.
2. There is no way to justify, for instance, that the pitch should be 22 yards long: Of course. But *given that the pitch is 22 yards long*, it would be justifiable for the wide line to be 0.8 meters from the stumps instead of 0.9 meters, but certainly not 4 meters from the stumps. That would be absurd too.
These examples are to demonstrate that rules and laws are not completely arbitrary constructs of a sealed-shut system that has no interaction with the ways of the "real" world. You should reward higher risk with a bigger reward. That's why the 6 gets you 6 and not 3. That's a principle from economics. The wide line shouldn't be at 4 meters because there are constraints on what the human body can achieve.
If you're fielding and take a shy at the stumps and it's blocked by a batter who clearly and deliberately obstructed the throw, you think "that's not right" even if you've never read the laws of the game.
So to insist that rules are completely arbitrary is, to use a term I used before, a strange and robotic way to look at the game.
"Proposals... do not even attempt to show that there won't be contradictions"
This could just be a sampling issue in your worldview. You've referred to proposals from Kimber and Bal, who are journalists and not lawmakers. There are ways to turn their core ideas into laws that don't contradict other laws, with some extra verbiage.
"*given that a boundary is worth 4 runs*, a six should be worth 5/6/7... but not 1/2/3. That would be absurd."
It would only be absurd given the presumption that hitting the ball over the boundary on the full is more desirable than hitting it past the boundary on the bounce. There is no reason for thinking that it has to be more desirable. That is an entirely arbitrary, unreasoned choice.
The same goes for (2).
I don't insist that the rules are arbitrary, I merely observe that they are. That is what makes it a game.
I completely agree. Laws are laws, have to be followed. People have problems with the laws only when they don't get the results which favour their logic or stance.
"as Jarrod Kimber proposes. This would be as unfair to the bowling side as the apparent denial of four leg byes is considered to be for the batting side. There is no method of retrospective reinstatement which can prevent such unfairness to one side or the other in the event of a successful player review by a batter. For example, suppose the ball trickles for four leg byes. Under the normal circumstances, if the fielding side wasn’t appealing, but fielding, they would probably stop the ball before it crossed the boundary. But now, they concede four runs because they were doing something which the law requires them to do to get a dismissal - to ask for a dismissal."
The fielding side is aware of the possibility of an appeal not being given and consequently needing to field the ball because it stays in play. There might be slight change in the manner of appeal where some of the players field while others appeal. This already happens when fielding team is not entirely confident with their appeal.
I often think that cricket fans are hopelessly prejudiced against bowlers.
Here, you seem to think it is fair for the bowling side to be retrospectively penalized because "they're not entirely confident of their appeal". But you want the batting side to get 4 extra runs for missing the ball!
The batsman could also have clearly hit the ball.
He didn't.
Shubham and I both seem to be talking about the law and not that particular incident.
Had it not been for that particular incident, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Besides, all you seem to be doing is to say that its perfectly fine to be unfair to the bowling side by reinstating the runs, but its not fine to be unfair to the batter. This is not the pursuit of a fairer law. It's simply the pursuit of a law which favors the batter.
Firstly, why does the trigger matter? Better late than never, in my book. Kimber has a video where he's imagined the case where the batter hits the ball, is given out on field, the decision is reversed upon review, but no runs are awarded. Just that this happens on the last ball of a world cup final and the absence of those runs changes the result.
To say that that situation is fair to both the batsman and bowler would be a stretch.
Good to see you bat for laws that are fair to bowlers, though. Or disagree with a suggestion because you feel it's unfair to someone. It's almost as if internal consistency and lack of contradiction aren't the only criteria that should decide whether a law is good or not.
Using the words fair and unfair? I call that progress.