Opinion: These 5 Cricket Rules Must Be Abandoned Immediately by the International Cricket Council.

 

After the ball hit Ben Stokes' bat and raced to the boundary, England was given four additional runs. .© AFP

No one could have predicted how the World Cup 2019 would end. Apart from the International Cricket Council, which is the sport's governing body (ICC). While we will speak about how spectacular the World Cup 2019 final was for years to come, the fact that no team lost in the final and just one team won the World Cup has many cricket fans seething at the ICC regulations.

The Neelkanth online cricket id provide following are the five cricket regulations that must be abolished immediately.

Don't understand how the game of such proportions, the #CWC19Final, is finally decided on who scored the most boundaries. A ridiculous rule @ICC. Should have been a tie. I want to congratulate both @BLACKCAPS & @englandcricket on playing out a nail biting Final. Both winners imo.

— Gautam Gambhir (@GautamGambhir) July 14, 2019

1. World Cup Final Tie:  What are the chances of a tie in the World Cup Final? Then there's the Super Over, which likewise ends in a tie?

The World Cup final between England and New Zealand had everything except a conclusion to determine the competition's champion. In the event of a tie Super Over, the side with the most boundaries wins the match, according to current ICC rules. This is akin to a team winning the World Cup on the basis of ball possession following a stalemate in a penalty shootout.

After the game, New Zealand captain Kane Williamson said that the rule used to determine the World Cup winners was "difficult to accept." Gautam Gambhir, a former Indian cricketer, was harsher in his criticism, calling the ICC rule absurd.

2. Batsman's bat or body overthrow

While runs scored off overthrows have been an important part of many tight matches throughout history, Ben Stokes' overthrows that went for a boundary and resulted in 6 runs will be remembered for decades. Despite Stokes' immediate apology for the unintended error, the umpires were unable to do anything but award runs to the batting side due to MCC rules. Although the jury is still split on whether the umpires should have awarded 5 or 6 runs for that fatal overthrow, the ICC should repeal this contentious rule.

3. A gentle signal

The fact that the soft signal is based on no hard reasoning makes this law completely odd. Because it was deemed that camera footage occasionally cast doubt on clean catches, the soft signal was added for contested catches. As a result, the primary duty for decision-making remains with the on-field umpires. But what this soft signal has done to the game is that most of the time, when it comes to disputed catches, the umpire goes with the players' quick reaction, making it tough to overturn with no conclusive evidence. This is when the TV umpire should be brought in, as he is better equipped with several camera angles to have a look at the situation.

 4. On-field performance No-Ball

On-field umpires have a difficult job. Officiating the entire match, ensuring that the game is played in accordance with the rules of cricket, keeping a close eye on the line and length of every ball that could be an LBW call, and calling wides and no-balls. While on-field umpires now have the benefit of technology when determining run-out, LBW, and even close-catch decisions, the front-foot no-ball call from the umpire needs to be updated as soon as feasible. Only in cases of dismissal does the on-field umpire consult with the TV umpire about the legality of the ball in the given scenario. While this is a positive step toward reducing errors, it is frequently a no-ball that hasn't been called.

It's past time for the TV umpire to take up the front-foot no-ball, not only to relieve the on-field umpire of some of his responsibilities, but also to ensure that mistakes in the game of narrow margins are kept to a minimum.

5. Dead-ball rule of DRS

So, while this scenario has never occurred in a cricket match before, cricket fans online have been discussing the possibility of a match-breaking crisis for quite some time. Consider this scenario: in the Super Over, a batsman needs only one run off the last ball to win the match. The ball strikes the batsman's pad, deflects to fine-leg, and the batsman runs for a leg-bye. The bowling team raises an appeal, and the umpire dismisses the batter for LBW, which the batsman challenges for review. Will the batsman get that leg-bye run if the DRS rules in his favour?

 NO. The ball is ruled dead as soon as the umpire makes his decision, according to the DRS rule. In this case, a faulty DRS decision will result in the denial of a perfectly lawful leg-bye. It is past time for the ICC to take a proactive approach to this statute, since it has the potential to be a disaster. You have been warned, ICC.