There’s a similar, albeit slower moving, pattern in baseball. This season saw some of the largest rule changes in years with massive limitations on shifts (to wipe out some of the Moneyball-type strats) and the addition of a pitch clock.
The more common strategy taken by baseball, though, is to codify the spirit of the game. For example, the game codifies the concept of player error and limits how much the other team can benefit from errors, such as only allowing a double when overthrowing first in an out attempt. The best example is likely the infield fly rule which prevents fielders intentionally missing the catch in order to get more outs on the play.
I’m not sure if this is better or worse than cricket’s approach, but it does suggest an alternative strategy to achieve similar ends.
Isn’t it worse, for the reason mentioned in the OP (it’s Goodhart-able)?
This is why it is important that the ‘spirit of cricket’ is never properly codified into laws. If it was, then players would simply game the rules and find the most successful strategy that operates within the laws of the game and the process would be Goodharted.
Maybe in theory, but in practice humans have actual limits on performance and sometimes adequate rules actually succeed in limiting our ability to continue to game the systems to our advantage. That or the cost of further gaming is too high to be worth it (for example, in baseball egregious bad sportsmanship is often rewarded with the pitcher intentionally hitting the batter with the pitch).
There’s a similar, albeit slower moving, pattern in baseball. This season saw some of the largest rule changes in years with massive limitations on shifts (to wipe out some of the Moneyball-type strats) and the addition of a pitch clock.
The more common strategy taken by baseball, though, is to codify the spirit of the game. For example, the game codifies the concept of player error and limits how much the other team can benefit from errors, such as only allowing a double when overthrowing first in an out attempt. The best example is likely the infield fly rule which prevents fielders intentionally missing the catch in order to get more outs on the play.
I’m not sure if this is better or worse than cricket’s approach, but it does suggest an alternative strategy to achieve similar ends.
Isn’t it worse, for the reason mentioned in the OP (it’s Goodhart-able)?
Maybe in theory, but in practice humans have actual limits on performance and sometimes adequate rules actually succeed in limiting our ability to continue to game the systems to our advantage. That or the cost of further gaming is too high to be worth it (for example, in baseball egregious bad sportsmanship is often rewarded with the pitcher intentionally hitting the batter with the pitch).