Lets start off with cricket, we have seen bats become much thicker, flat pitches and bringing in boundaries.

Bringing in the boundaries was done to make sure players didn't get career ending injuries from sliding into fence, it also allows for pitch to boundary distances to be semi-even as the pitch isn't ever actually centre (they have multiple pitches on the ground).

The development of bats and flat pitches isn't intentional or a direction by the ICC. In fact, it's achieving the opposite to what the ICC wants.

The Adelaide Oval day-nighter last year was the complete opposite to that and was pretty much exactly what the ICC wants (save for the fact it lasted 3 days): a game where you don't know what the end result will be after the first innings.

High scoring draws don't rate, annihilations don't rate but close games with regular wickets taken, momentum swings and players working hard for milestones do rate. For that you need a pitch which won't deliver a win based on whomever bats first innings, or will deliver massive favouritism towards batsmen.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

The absence of ICC regulating bats doesn't mean they like the direction it's going. If you're going to regulate bats, how do you do it?

T20 is a different game to Test Cricket, it's fair to say the way test cricket is going isn't how the ICC would like it to go.

The pitches depend on the geographical location and it also depends on the ground and the curator. It's not really up to the ICC as to how the curator wishes to do it, and how the host side wishes to do it. The ICC also can't dictate the weather which makes most pitches the way they are in Australia.

The notion that the ICC is aiming for batting favoritism, particularly in test matches, and to this extent is thoroughly rejected.

Also, T20 cricket is third in line behind Test and ODI's in International cricket in Australia. That's why they only play a couple and treat it with general disregard.

The domestic T20 competition is run by Cricket Australia, not the ICC.

Anyone can pick up Dave Warner's bat. Not everyone bats like Dave Warner. As long as the bat is within legal specs the bowlers can keep crying.
The roads they keep dishing up as pitches is another matter and a disgrace. There's no "test" in Test matches most of the time any more. I wonder how much the TV networks are paying the groundsmen

But to get back on topic ... the rules - of basketball - are designed to ensure an 'even playing field' in the sense of a more-or-less even balance between attack and defense.

However, it seems today's on-court officials prefer to 'interpret' rather than 'react' and call what they manage to see [no-one expects perfection] which has resulted in the mess we have at present, with no consistence or clarity and as a result players [and fans] frustrated and confused.

Give me a close game called by the rules so we see skills 'at both ends of the court' - i.e., defensive skills as well as attacking skills - over a 30 point blow out any day.

And yes, there are defensive skills that start to become evident when defenders are prevented [by calling the illegal action] from holding, grappling, pushing, bumping, chopping ... the stuff you currently see every game.

Of course, if the attacking player is allowed to walk with the ball [ever tried defending an attacker when the footwork rule goes out the window?], fend off defenders in legal positions, set moving screens, charge their way to the basket and use two hands in the middle of an opponents back to get a rebound, the defender has to try to find some way of staying in the game.

Calling a game by the rules 'as they are writ' would go a long, long way towards fixing all that, but umpiring and playing by the rules is too old-fashioned for these modern times, I suppose.

How do you regulate bats? Seriously? The specifications on bat sizes are in the rule book.

That's clearly not the point, you're arguing the current rules/specifications don't cut it because the bats are too advantageous, so I am saying how would you go about changing them, I wasn't saying bats aren't regulated.

Different batsmen use different size and weighted bats - part of that is to do with the physical height of the batsman, part of that is to do with physical strength of the batsman.

Given that, beyond the rules we already have, how would you regulate the bats to make them less advantageous without turning the game into over-regulated absurdity?


I agree with Duke Fan, and funnily enough he was able to grasp the point.

Pop +1

I think the OP is correct in what they are saying.
But its often not rule changes, so much as it is simply evolution of the game. And perhaps you could say a LACK of rules changes to return the game to where it was.

Plus its a tough question. The pre-eminent leagues ARE all about entertainment and money. And its US, the consumer who drives that.
When you boil it right down, what you are in fact objecting to is that the majority of fans don't share your opinion.
I find myself in the same boat, but whatcha gonna do? Majority rules.

"OP LACK ARE US!"

OP is an acronym.
As for the rest, convince Oscar to change the site to make it easier to underline, and I'll stop.

LOL-scar!

Underlining isn't hard, but it's discouraged on the Internet because it's usually an indicator of a hyperlink.

I assume it, and other stuff, isn't hard on this board if you know how to code HTML, (which I don't) and can be bothered (which I can't).
And yes, in monochrome, bolding is probably preferred, although not such an issue on boards that colour-code hyperlinks.

And yes I am that old that I started out using a typewriter for correspondence.

KET obviously hasn't been paying much attention to cricket in Australia the past decade...

Do you have a point to make or is that a wild shot in the dark given i'm an avid cricket fan?

There are two separate issues being discusse don here. One is changing teh rules and teh other is what Dazz referred to as " it is simply evolution of the game".

Changing the rules is stuff like the OP's original reference to NFL and quarterback protection. The best local examples I can think of are in cricket, NBL and AFL. Cricket saw two new versions of the game (World Series 40 years ago then 2020 more recently). NBL reduced game lengths by 8 minutes and adopted the (FIBA) no-charge circle. AFL replaced the substitute bench of 2 players with an interchange bench of 4 players and made it illegal to deliberately rush a behind unless under immediate pressure proximate to the goal. These were all changes aimed at making the professional product more successful, commercially.

Evolution of the game is where we see the influence of professional coaches, analysts and sports scientists on how the game is played, within whatever rules are in place. So we see AFL coaches adopting possession tactics (from soccer) zone defences (from basketball) and forward pressure, which didn't exist 30 years ago. We see tennis players using larger racquets and focusing on power serving. We see bigger bats in cricket and more investment in training on fielding skills.

Both of these are trends driven by professional leagues. The money to fund the research and the employ the coaches and analysts has driven the rapid changes in tactics, coaching and equipment in all sports, over the last 30 years. The reality of full-time players has provided the time for those players to do the training and development needed to become proficient in the new tactics and with the new equipment.

Some of the rule changes in sports have been in response to the more sophisticated tactics being used. See above example re AFL and rushed behinds. Others have been solely about trying to maintain or increase the sport's share of the commercial entertainment dollar (usually measured in TV rights payments).

I don';t have a problem with the rules being changed to make professional sports more attractive. The problem I have is when these rules are thoughtlessly pushed down to the lower levels of the sport, where the needs are different. For most participants, sport is about having a good time and enjoying a competitive, social experience with other, like minded people. We don't do it for money nor for the spectators. The same is true of junior levels of the sport as well as social adults. We do it for ourselves and our team or club. Sometimes the rule changes get in the way of that.

The no-charge circle for me is an example of that. Its purpose was solely to create the opportunity for spectacular (dare I say "playground" dunks) and is at odds to the philosophy espoused in basketball that skill should transcend blunt force and that good, courageous defence should be rewarded.

In my view, there should be more consideration given to the impact on lower levels of the game before imposing rule changes at the professional level on all levels. I'm happy for pro sports to modify the game however they want, as long as it doesn't screw up the game I play socially. Because if it does, people will stop playing socially and then the sport itself will be in trouble, not just the pro leagues. Ultimately, that will also hurt the league that initiated the change.

I'd like to see more of a 'gentleman's agreement' for some things, like if an exciting player is on a breakaway, the chasing defender backs of and let's him dunk freely, instead of chasing him down and fouling him for the boring free throws plus added risk of injury.

This could then tighten up in the last 5 minutes or so of a game when the result is actually decided.

Wilson - fixing that last 5 minutes is easy. Just award an automatic point for a shooting foul and player still gets the usual free shots. Or, first foul shot is worth 2 points and subsequent foul shots are worth 1 point. Either way, even basketball coaches can work out it isn't worth tactically fouling a shooting player then.

Anyway, a gentleman's agreement such as you suggest is extremely unlikely in a league where fouling a player taking a shot is a preferred tactic and applauded as a "smart/good foul". As opposed to falling over when someone pushes or hits you being seen as flopping, with all of its negative connotations. Go figure.