I think the it will remain part of the game
The one area where it seems unfair is Braithwaite smashes a six then retires. An old school playground rule where if you hit it over the wall you had to climb over and fetch it from the neighbouring garden or you were 6 and out.
The bowling side could be allowed to select a bowler who has used up their allocation to return to bowl (e.g. in a 20 over game they'd get a 5th over or 5th set of deliveries)

It shouldn't occur 3 or 4 times as it is only going to be used towards the end of a shortened already short format game although what's to stop 2 players retiring out at the same time or if there is a run out and the other batter retires out bringing 2 fresh faces to the crease.

GerryShedd wrote:

I think Mark Cosgrove was one who liked batting but wasn't too keen on fielding.
And going back to 2005, Ricky Ponting had something to say about being run out by Gary Pratt.

Ah yes, how silly of me. Definitely Mr Cosgrove.

One answer could be that once a player has been substituted whether as batsman, bowler or fielder then he takes no part in the rest of the game.

I hope today's 8 over game having an exciting finish does not give the ECB the idea of introducing a Half-Hundred format!!

Positives from the game were the excellent all round performance of Jacob Bethall, he was great in the field. Also the way Craig Miles kept his cool in the tight final over.

We have the core for a really good team.

The Carlos incident (and Patel) was sufficient enough to prompt a CricInfo article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/vitality-t20-blast-2022-why-carlos-brathwaite-and-samit-patel-retired-out-tactically-in-the-same-game-1318611

The link is invalid.

Try this link:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/vitality-t20-blast-2022-why-carlos-brathwaite-and-samit-patel-retired-out-tactically-in-the-same-game-1318611

Peter Moores in the article makes the most significant point that he doesn't see it happening a lot. Have to be clear, this isn't a tactical replacement it's a decision to sacrifice a wicket so it's a lot of resources to give up.

Substitutions, which crop up around this situation, are a different matter and I think that might work. It's useful to also be aware of the situation in baseball, however. Unlimited substitutions are fine, player leaves the game when subbed off, and squads are huge for a 180 game season. If a game is dead you might see two substitutions for every position. That's bad and shortchanges spectators - it's no resemblance to what you paid to watch.

I wonder if one substitutions per team, per innings would make sense? As a neutral I actually quite like watching Mark Cosgrove bat. But his fielding isn't quite as aesthetique. Good to get the best of him without cheating.

MLB has a 162 game regular season, the active roster is 24 players, of which at least 12 are specialitist pitchers. that expands to 40 in September, to allow promising young players from the minor leagues an opportunity.

Good to know. So realistically only three non-pitchers switched per game? I swear I saw a game when the whole side had switched at least once, but it was in Japan in 2004. Total shambles. Clear as day I can remember a pinch hitter coming on, getting a hit then being subbed for a specialist runner when on first base.

Highveld wrote:

MLB has a 162 game regular season, the active roster is 24 players, of which at least 12 are specialitist pitchers. that expands to 40 in September, to allow promising young players from the minor leagues an opportunity.

It may have been an exhibition game of Japanese league game.
The majority of the position players are in action everyday.

There are some tactical substitutions, but the rules about replacing pitchers has changed which reduces the substitutions a lot.
Baseball is a very enjoyable sport to watch, definately better than, almost all, franchise cricket.
The stadiums are very good, and ticket prices are reasonable.

Was definitely a regular-season game. If the rosters at the time were one or two higher and there were less than 12 pitchers in them, which was distinctly possible, that could account for it.

And I'm with you on the comparison with franchise cricket and MLB or Japanese baseball. The food and beer for sure.

Highveld wrote:

It may have been an exhibition game of Japanese league game.
The majority of the position players are in action everyday.

There are some tactical substitutions, but the rules about replacing pitchers has changed which reduces the substitutions a lot.
Baseball is a very enjoyable sport to watch, definately better than, almost all, franchise cricket.
The stadiums are very good, and ticket prices are reasonable.

Good to know there is someone else on here that appreciates baseball.

I went to my first baseball game since moving to the US in Denver a month or two ago. Reminded me quite a lot of cricket in the way that the game is watched and the overall atmosphere.

If you can, try to get tickets when the LA Dodgers are playing the Rockies, they are the strongest side and very good to watch.

There is a great family atmosphere, especially at the Sunday afternoon games.

There is a lot cricket could learn in terms of marketing the sport from baseball.

Perhaps we need to have a seperate thread for baseball.

I too am a lover of baseball having been at the St Louis Cardinals and also at the Mets. I too noticed the great family atmosphere and how spectators around us enjoyed explaining the finer points of the game to us Brits

That is very true.
Was at a game in San Francisco in April and the locals were great in explaining things, but also interested in how Brits viewed the sport.
A great thing at many clus is allowing kids to "Run the bases" after a game.
At LA Dodgers on a sunday game literally hundreds of kids were allowed to run the bases after the game, in a very organised and safe way.

While there is a massive range of ticket prices, it is possible to get seats with a good view for well under $50