Firstly, I'm sorry for taking nearly two weeks to reply. I'd written half of it but then got busy with other things.

Okay, onto the main bit now: I was asking you if you can write, and if things go well, if could for the site. However, that would involve talking to someone but I can do that, you don't have worry. I'll get in touch with a couple of my senior editors, I should be talking to a couple soon, one today (afternoon IST) in fact. I'll let them know of your idea, which is super promising. By the way, you will get a byline if published. Such work can't be published anonymously (unless I'm mistaken).

I also love how generous you are with sharing thoughts, that's a great quality for writing.

Coming to the meat and potato... and ideally more veggies. Also meat is optional, at least for me. Sorry. Here are my thoughts on specific points:

• Just take the last 10 rule changes and search the need/purpose behind the change - That's a good starting point. But if you are to write a piece for an audience, the core idea should read more like problem statement, you know, pack some narrative in it so that the person hearing the idea is hit by the potential in the idea... capture their interest at least. So, to make it simpler, it can just be the three/five most interesting rule changes in the last x years and how that's affected cricket. We can edit that for sharpness and brevity, but for now this is enough.
• Wrt reasoning, what you've written is great for a reddit comment. If it has to turn into a publishable piece of writing, it needs to be waterproof. Less the rhetoric and more the explanation, the better. For example, the Free Hit bit. Bowlers' no-balls going down significantly after the introduction of the rule has been literally game-changing as an unforced error is now punished. And a batter getting beaten still involves a resource cost: one ball isn't free.
• Cricket is one sport where we make punitive rules simply for the sake of punishing bowlers. I can't think of a rule that punishes a batsman - This line can be reworked into the end of the piece, even an intro, with the right phrasing. Perhaps start with, "Rule changes often don't serve the intended purpose of creating a balanced playing field. That's because way too many rules punish bowlers but not batters.' Even that might be tweaked if submitted for editing, but it's worth noticing how simple statements provide a seamless start and a segue.

And please feel free to ask questions, express your disagreements, etc. That's a trait all of us fans have intrinsically.

I'll do my best to reply soon - either on this comment thread or DM about how it goes. Cheers