THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?

[SJS]

To play devil's advocate, would you call Larwood & Voce negative bowlers? Both known to pitch the ball outside leg on the odd occasion!

Answering this bit of your query (seriously ), no they were not being purely negative (although the intent was to slow down Bradman's run getting) they were also aggressive by trying to get him out. But for this they were using another law (or absence of one) which has since been modified. There was no restriction on the number of fielders you could have behind square on the leg side. So their leg theory, fast and short on the leg stum did not just cramp the batsmen, it made them fend at it and with the speed and height it would invariably travel some distance before hiting the ground. WQith five fielders waiting around the batsman in close catching position on the legside, besides those on the fence at long leg and square leg, it was very difficult to handle.

Even forty years later with only two fielders allowed behind square, the West Indian fast bowlers showed how difficult it was to play such bowling and we had a hue and cry on restricting the number of bouncers !!

Imagine with no limit on bouncers, no limit on leg side fielders and no helmets.
No. they were not bowling negative, it was worse but, as Jardine realised , well within the laws of the day !!

 

[BoyBrumby]

It isnt really if you study batsmanship.

Physically it is possible (and much easier) to play a ball pitched on or outside the of stump to a larger number of directions than a ball pitchd outside the legstump. This is a fact and any batsman can vouch for it. For most shots you need to be able to free your arms and it is that much more difficult if the ball is aimed at your legs. If it is outside them, it is extremely inconvinient and very difficult to 'consistently be able to hit it in any direction other than the leg side. Where as a ball on the off stump or outside involves much lesser risk and more freedom to be played in a wider radial.

Thus by bowling on and outside the leg stump and with a field set accordingly, it is easier to bottle up a batsman with what we may term 'leg theory' than with its counter part , the 'off theory'

To stop bowlers from resorting to this negative line and for the game to become les of a spectacle , imagine how many strokes would just vanish from the game, bowlers are discouraged from resorting to this line of attack.

It is not arbitrary and is one of the most discussed laws in the game and every time, it has been debated, the majority has voted for restricting leg side attack and having the law as it is for deliveries pitching outside the leg stump.

Very fair points, and eloquently argued, but surely the idea behind changing the law should be to redress the balance more in favour of the bowler?

 

[SJS]

Very fair points, and eloquently argued, but surely the idea behind changing the law should be to redress the balance more in favour of the bowler?

YES. That AND to make the game an entertaining spectacle.

So the modification regarding point of contact outside the off stump would tilt quite a bit in bowlers favour.

Just recall how many batsmen pad up to Harbhajan and Murali outside the off stump. Now they would all be risking hugely.

Then, the left arm in swing bowlers who are being forced to bowl their incoming deliveries from over the wicket so as to improve their chances would be able to go back to bowling round the wickets (to right handers naturally) and the batsman would have to play at swinging in deliveries pitched outside the off stump.

Googlies coming in from outside the off stump would be fraught with huge danger if the batsman decided to pad them away. same with off cutters.

Chopra, when he was given out padding to an incoming delivery was actually hoping the point of contact would be outside the off stump. With this change in law he wont be able to contem0plate this course of action.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I totally agree. Anything that improves the entertainment value has to be good for the game.

However, under the current laws though there is no specific restriction on bowling outside leg in test & first class games, it just means the bowler cannot gain an LBW decision. I think this encourages the batsman to pad the ball away with impunity. If an LBW was a possibility would this force batsmen to play more shots? Worth an experiment to see how it pans out?

 

[SJS]

I totally agree. Anything that improves the entertainment value has to be good for the game.

However, under the current laws though there is no specific restriction on bowling outside leg in test & first class games, it just means the bowler cannot gain an LBW decision. I think this encourages the batsman to pad the ball away with impunity. If an LBW was a possibility would this force batsmen to play more shots? Worth an experiment to see how it pans out?

The whole idea is to have bowlers bowling 'mainly , on the stumps or outside the off stump so as to have the batsman play wider range of strokes and for the entire field to comeinto play.

If you look at how differnetly the wide is interpreted depending on whether it is pitched outside the off or outside the leg stump, it reinforces the same logic.

Batsmen are too badly constrained by bowling outside the leg stump for it not to become the refuge af any fielding side wanting to play it safe.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So, if I've understood your gist correctly, you'd be anti on the grounds it would reduce entertainment value by restricting the batters shot selection & give too much of an advantage to the bowlers?

 

[SJS]

So, if I've understood your gist correctly, you'd be anti on the grounds it would reduce entertainment value by restricting the batters shot selection & give too much of an advantage to the bowlers?

Yes. I think if bowlers insisted on a leg stump and outside attack with a packed on side field, it would reduce the spectacle.

Its possible that the batsmen may find counter to such attack by some fdifferent methods but the game will change from the way we know it.

If the introduction of the outside off stump contact rule is introduced and need is still felt to further help the bowler, a law like, say, increasing the width of the stumps from 9 to 10 inches would be much more helpful without changing the basic skills of the game.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes. I think if bowlers insisted on a leg stump and outside attack with a packed on side field, it would reduce the spectacle.

Its possible that the batsmen may find counter to such attack by some fdifferent methods but the game will change from the way we know it.

If the introduction of the outside off stump contact rule is introduced and need is still felt to further help the bowler, a law like, say, increasing the width of the stumps from 9 to 10 inches would be much more helpful without changing the basic skills of the game.

Fair points, well made. Of course there is restriction on how many fielders a team can post behind square on the on side (thanks to my chums Larwood & Voce, in no small part), but I have a suspicion we may be entering Richard/TEC territory, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree?!

 

[SJS]

Fair points, well made. Of course there is restriction on how many fielders a team can post behind square on the on side (thanks to my chums Larwood & Voce, in no small part), but I have a suspicion we may be entering Richard/TEC territory, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree?!

No. You are not alone in the argument you offer. There have been others down the years including in 1936 who said the same. But most batsmen (naturally) disagred and a large number of captains.

So I wont dismiss your arg7uments out of hand. Of course I myself have been mainly a batsman and as a bowler brought the ball in to the right hander (long long ago ) so I could be said to have a 'vested' point of view

And no my dear we are far from our esteemed colleagues . Those debates are too complicated for me to even contemplate participating in. PLUS from the very first response I can see what is happening and I conced defeat and retire from the scene

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'd agree word for word with SJS on this!

And for some evidence - I've been no-balled for a return crease violation before, which is fairly embarrassing as a spinner!

 

[KennyD]

I'd agree word for word with SJS on this!

And for some evidence - I've been no-balled for a return crease violation before, which is fairly embarrassing as a spinner!

actually i have too, i bowl chinamans and often i try to really close my acton up and get side on to the batsmen so that in my delivery action i can give it a big rip with a full revolution of the body. Im sure this is the same as you niel and in getting siide on so much the back foot touches the return crease.

 

[Mr. P]

Although I think there should be some change to give bowlers something in an age where scoring is constant and massive, the change that is proposed would tilt it way too far in the bowlers favour.

It would create way too many LBWs...

Other points to consider...

- In swing would become much more popular...
- Bowlers would change their tactics a hell of a lot...bowl very straight etc...
- Spin bowling could potentially be ruined...
- Batting styles could be changed a lot also depending on the law changes influence...

 

[shankar]

Was there any reason/justification for the 'outside the line of off-stump' rule when it was originally made?

 

[Neil Pickup]

actually i have too, i bowl chinamans and often i try to really close my acton up and get side on to the batsmen so that in my delivery action i can give it a big rip with a full revolution of the body. Im sure this is the same as you niel and in getting siide on so much the back foot touches the return crease.

Side-on bowling actions are where your feet are parallel to the popping crease.. do you mean that your body's pointing to pretty much first slip (to a RHB)? 'Cause that's gonna bugger your back big time!

   |                       |
   |________W__W__W________|
   |                       |
___|_______________________|___
           [BATSMAN]
 







__________________[FRONT]______
   |                       |
   |                       |
   |                       |
   |________W__W__W___[BACK]
   |                       |
   |                       |

 

[marc71178]

I guess the counter argument is that this would encourage negative bowling, but the umpires have discretion to warn bowlers for excessively negative bowling, so why not give it a try?

Do they?!

 

[marc71178]

And for some evidence - I've been no-balled for a return crease violation before, which is fairly embarrassing as a spinner!

The only way he could guarantee hitting the strip was if he started off 5 yards wide of it!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Lol! Nah, I’ve never been no-balled for a return crease violation.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think we are talking about different planes .


I gather that when you say ( look at bold part of quote) , you mean that the bowler might be bowling the same line ( ie; the line more or less parallel to the line connecting the two stumps at the opposite ends of the wicket) , but from further back ( ie 23 or 24 or more yards from the batsman instead of the normal 22)

What I meant was , since you say that the front line of the crease is unlimited in length , couldnt the bowler try bowling from more than say 10 feet to the left hand side of the umpire standing at his normal position behind the stumps ?

If the bowler was allowed lbws from that angle, I think it would be very unfair to the batsman .

Firstly, it'd be very hard to give LBW's with the ball coming in at such an angle.

Secondly, I think the original post understood your intent, and was saying that the line running parallel to the wicket on the crease, about 2 feet to the left of the umpire, is also imagined to be unlimited in length so delivering from outside this would be a no-ball.

 

[Son Of Coco]

To play devil's advocate, would you call Larwood & Voce negative bowlers? Both known to pitch the ball outside leg on the odd occasion!

Seriously though, it strikes me as a bit arbitrary that if a ball pitches a quarter of an inch outside leg there's no way a batter can be given out. Warne's "ball of the century" pitched several inches outside leg. If Gatt had got a pad in the way he wouldn't have been out. It strikes me as unfair that such a ball could've easily brought no reward.

I think this is because a ball pitching outside leg is generally regarded as a little more difficult to play being that in a normal batting stance you have a blind spot etc there that makes it harder to judge.

As a bowler I'd prefer to see the leg-side rule as far as LBW's go stay as it is, I think that if you brought in all these new regulations for LBW then it would sway things too much in the bowler's favour..........LBW when playing a shot on the off may be a good one though. At the moment it's only if the ball pitches outside off and you're playing a shot that you can't be given out though so.....................I don't know! haha

 

[Son Of Coco]

I totally agree. Anything that improves the entertainment value has to be good for the game.

However, under the current laws though there is no specific restriction on bowling outside leg in test & first class games, it just means the bowler cannot gain an LBW decision. I think this encourages the batsman to pad the ball away with impunity. If an LBW was a possibility would this force batsmen to play more shots? Worth an experiment to see how it pans out?

I don't think it would improve entertainment,you'd just see teams getting out for very low scores and it wouldn't be entirely out of the question seeing 10 LBW's on a team's scorecard.