Cricket lovers - please explain

[Dicko]

Why does cricket have to stop for rain?

 

If it's more difficult to bat or bowl, then that should add to the excitement & entertainment

 

So many matches are ruined by the weather, I've never understood why

[J Bizzle]

Safety, and to preserve the track.

[Dog]

Worms

[SuperMikey]

Cricket isn't supposed to be exciting or entertaining.

 

HTH

[chrisobee]

To be fair the umpires do try to play on if they can far more than they used to.

However, to really understand this you need to have sat through 3/4 days of no action to appreciate the excitement that arises if the players do get onto the pitch and even if more rain drives them off after one ball that moment stays with you forever I promise

[Trader]

Safety, and to preserve the track.

 

 

Track?

 

You obviously know as much about cricket as you do about tennis.

[ChrisPY]

Track?

 

You obviously know as much about cricket as you do about tennis.

 

You obviously don't know much about tennis. They have a roof over the centre track at Wimbledon so rain wont affect play.

[RedAndWhite91]

Yeh so you don't mess up the wicket, and you can't bat in the rain anyway, it'd be impossible and dangerous, and your nice expensive bat would get ruined

[saintwarwick]

You obviously don't know much about tennis. They have a roof over the centre track at Wimbledon so rain wont affect play.

 

And that's been there how many years?

[Kingsland Codger]

Why was the West Indies innings restricted to just 9 overs? Yes, there had been a rain delay but the ground has floodlights, so why not just play on until their 20 overs were completed? Yes, the match might have finished an hour or so later but where's the harm in that? Fans worried about getting home? Then just leave when you think it appropriate to do so.

[Robsk II]

And that's been there how many years?

 

Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure Wimbledon isn;t the only location in the whole world where one can play tennis.

[JustMike]

Why was the West Indies innings restricted to just 9 overs? Yes, there had been a rain delay but the ground has floodlights, so why not just play on until their 20 overs were completed? Yes, the match might have finished an hour or so later but where's the harm in that? Fans worried about getting home? Then just leave when you think it appropriate to do so.

 

it was decided before the tournement started that in rain etc effected games then D /L would come into it. So, yes the game good quite easily have still been 20 / 20 each but because of the agreement it was out of the umpires hands...

 

...which sums up what is still wrong with cricket and that is common sense! Beefy is always moaning about the extreme lack of it in the sport from the stupid agreement about rain effected games to why it takes so long for a game to re-start after rain when the players are just standing around, the suns out and the ground is full.

[Kingsland Codger]

Thanks for that explaination, JustMike. Shame about the lack of common sense - but there we are. The fact that people had paid good money to watch 40 overs of cricket and were being deprived of over 25% of what they had paid for in advance presumably never entered into the equation.

 

Instead of paying for 40 overs in advance, why not charge people per over and take the money off them as they leave the stadium. If the cost of a ticket is, say, £40 - make that £1 per over and so the crowd on Monday would only have paid £29. That would make the authorities sit up and think.

 

Cricket isn't alone in showing a lack of common sense - I see the referee Howard Webb is in trouble in the Confederation Cup for awarding a penalty after taking advice from the fourth official who had seen a TV replay. This was the same Howard Webb who got into trouble when he awarded Manchester United a penalty when TV replays later showed there hadn't been an infringement.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/8102629.stm