yeah i liked the wording of the change about running out a non striker , it said he could be run out if he was seen to be "unfairly backing up"

what does that actually mean ?

is it if hes a yard out of his ground, 2 yards or ?

afaik the rule has always been the bowler can run out the non-striker if he is out of his ground before the bowler goes into his delivery stride, so does this just mean they are actually going to enforce that rule now

and the change to rnners makes no sense whatsoever , if someone is genuinely hurt during a game then it is going to penalise his side alot if he has to just retire hurt and not be allowed a runner

i'm all for the umpires taking a much harder line on things like cramp, if they aint fit enough to bat a full innings then tough, but when its a genuine injury seems a bit harsh

Not having runners is a difficult one. I agree rich that the batting side could be severely handicapped.
My concern is that the rule changes concerning running between wickets and batsmen backing up could lead to ill feeling on the field when applied.

" This may well encourage bowlers to be even more obstructive to the running batsman than they often are now."

They will take into account any jiggery pokery from the bowler. Umpires are not stupid.

..and if you want to see spirit of cricket upheld , take umbrage at the batsman cheating and walking out of his crease.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The rule of when the batsman can leave his crease has changed.
Formally he could do so once the bowler had planted his back foot, now he can only leave his crease when the bowlers arm has moved into his normal bowling angle.

I like most here are not fully sure about the none allowance of a runner.. I can understand if its an internal injury like an hamstring strain or something. What happens if the batsman suffers a broken toe due to the ball hitting it or something? It wont last long this rule in my opinion..