[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the 30 hour time limit seems somewhat arbitrary. Why not just let them keep playing for as many days as it takes to finish?


[/ QUOTE ]

As Lori said below, they used to do that. But in fact, many cricket test matches would have no appeal to the viewers at all if a draw were not possible as a result.

For example, if a powerhouse like Australia played a minnow like Bangladesh and the rules were that they keep playing until both teams play their two innings in their entirety, the result would never be in doubt. Bangla would have absolutley no chance of winning. Also, with no clock to worry about, batsmen would take even longer to score runs. They can simply keep defending balls and only take risks on extremely badly bowled balls. A star batsman like Australia's skipper, Ricky Ponting, might never get out.

With a 5 day time limit, the game will hold some intrigue about it as Bangla could draw. Heck, they might even pull off an unlikely win if Australia "declares" (i.e. cuts short their second innings voluntarily to give themselves enough time to bowl out Bangla in their second innings) and the declaration backfires.

Test cricket works better with a 30 hour time limit.

As for the other matters you have raised, Lori has already addressed them.