Any new rule you would like to have in cricket ?? what it would be ? be it in any form of the game

In limited overs cricket,I feel there should be some certain standards a pitch has to meet before a match is started. Say, it's behavior should be as consistent as possible for 100 overs in ODI / 40 overs in T20. If not met, match should not be played.On occasions like these, a toss almost wins the match for you

__________________
Tendulkar - A gift to the game of cricket

When the number of overs allocated for the day's play have not been bowled and it is still good light, I see no reason for players to walk off the field.

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

Lots to bring bowlers back into the game.

1. Automatic removal of Test status (and/or large fines) for any ground on which three batsmen score centuries in one innings: centuries should require genius AND luck... and if a pitch is sporting enough for Test cricket, two in an innings should be VERY rare and three should almost never happen.

2. Automatic removal of Test status (and/or large fines) for any ground on which spinners do not play a significant role in the first innings. We all know Warne and Murali can play a part in the first innings, but bowlers of the callibre of Giles and Kaneria should be running in to bowl on day one and two pitches and finding enough encouragement to keep them VERY interested.

3. Automatic removal of Test status (and/or large fines) for any ground on which runs come faster than they did in 90% of games on the same pitch in the era of uncovered pitches: force groundsmen to work out ways of encouraging bowlers to pitch the ball up and of ensuring there's enough lateral movement to encourage playing late rather than going hard at the ball.

Edit: I accept that in respect of all three of the above, an appeal process should allow the groundsman to plead that the bowlers / fielders should have done a lot better... but the presumption should be that the pitch sucked rather than the presumption being that the bowlers / fielders sucked!

4. Revised ball regulations to ensure the seam is more prominent than on the kookaburra, that the duke has to stay hard for longer, and that any other ball has to meet at least those basic standards: when the ball is new, bounce and movement off the seam should ensure even modest quality opening bowlers can trouble average (though perhaps not truly exceptional) opening batsmen.

5. Revised ground regulations requiring a (high) minimum length and density of grass on the outfield such that balls don't wear quickly and so that fielders stand a chance of chasing down balls that have been hit hard along the ground.

6. Revised bat regulations to ensure those wanting a large sweetspot have to lug something VERY heavy around: a requirement to use a bat design from before 1960 would suffice... but one way or the other, the sweetspot needs to be smaller and the ability of batsmen to rely on power rather than placement needs to be massively reduced.

7. Revised ground-regulations so that a ball that balls have to clear a vast distance (even if that's well beyond the rope) in order to count as a six: bowlers (and especially spinners) should be running in knowing that hitting hard enough to get a six is going to over-extend (and make vulnerable) even the most powerful men in cricket - balls clearing the boundary rope but not carrying the requisite distance should just rate a four.

8. Revised guidance to umpires instructing them to call "match abandoned" if, in their judgement, no fair contest exists between bat and ball (a regulation that, to my mind, would lead to the abandonment of most games on pitches as they are currently prepared).

I would like to see uncovered pitches. Not only because rain will dampen the averages and egos of many biffers in the game, but also Derek Underwood might just contemplate "un-retiring" himself .

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

There are certainly a couple I'd like to see removed, notably the one where if you touch the ball and the rope at the same time it's 4. By the same logic, if I field it 10 meters out from the boundary, it should be counted as 4 because it would have been if I hadn't stopped it! The only criteria for a 4 should be that the ball itself crosses the boundary.

Here Here!! That would also stop those tiresome referrals.

Also the ball should be dead if a fielder hits the stumps. Overthrows are fair enough if the thorow is wild but it can't be right to penalise good fielding.

A lot of Rachael's points are sadly unworkable because there's no way of measuring them. However, the boundaries are one point that can be easily solved. I saw during the Oval test yesterday that the ropes were in about 5 or 6 yards from the boundary boards and England scored about 5 boundaries that barely reached the ropes. There should be a bare minimum for boundary distance, and grounds should utilise the larger boundary size if there is space available. This really gets on my wick. Batsmen have significantly better bats than 20 years ago, yet also get the benefit of smaller boundaries! Insane!!

Other things I would like to see is that no overthrows can be gained if the fielder has shied at the stumps, hit them and the ball ricochets off into the distance. No amount of backing up can prepare a fielder for what angle the ball will fly off from hitting the stumps, and why should the fielder be penalised for hitting the stumps??

The restriction on the number of fielders behind square on the leg side should be revised to allow an additional fielder there; to give fast bowlers the luxury of attacking the batsman with leg theory short pitched bowling to a greater extent. Given the safety gear available to batsmen these days, why should this law remain the same as the pre-padding period?